Preamble

The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PETITION (MEAT RATION)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Mr. Speaker, with your leave, I beg to present a Petition signed by 530,000 housewives of Great Britain as follows:
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
We, united housewives of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, hereby place on record our dissatisfaction with the quality and quantity of meat which is available.
Wherefore, we, your Petitioners, pray that the Government shall take immediate and active measures to provide a fuller ration of fresh and varied meat and a larger share of unrationed meats, such as liver, and sausages of fuller meat content.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Petition to lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Office, Glasgow (Complaints)

Mr. McGovern: asked the Minister of National Insurance if his attention has been drawn to the numerous complaints made against his officers at Stockwell Street, Glasgow, due to delay in granting claims which compels constituents of Shettleston to travel three and four miles by tram, costing 5d. for each double journey; the lack of knowledge possessed by the officers; the unsympathetic and impertinent attitude adopted to applicants for benefits; and if he will take steps to deal with these complaints.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): There have been special difficulties at this office owing to the gravely inadequate accommodation which is all that it has hitherto been possible to obtain. I have reason to expect that a suitable site for a new

office will soon be acquired, and meanwhile additional premises at Tollcross Parish Church Hall will be opened at the beginning of December.
As regards the specific matters of complaint mentioned, my hon. Friend has forwarded a letter to me containing a number of allegations but without the particulars which are necessary to enable me to investigate them. As regards in particular the attitude alleged to be adopted by the staff, I can recollect no previous complaint from any quarter though I should certainly wish to investigate such a complaint if prima facie evidence is furnished.

Mr. McGovern: While welcoming the provision of temporary accommodation to alleviate the conditions in the city, may I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that I have made this statement because a large number of people have both come to my house and approached me in the street and complained about the impertinent and rude way in which they are treated at this office? Will he take special care to send an investigator to interrogate, if necessary, people who are in this place to the extent of 100 at a time?

Mr. Griffiths: It is my desire—indeed, I have impressed it upon the staff to bear in mind that the people who come to them are in trouble and ought to be given every possible consideration. There is universal testimony that the members of our staff are responding to that, but if there is any specific charge I will certainly investigate and deal with it at once.

Benefit Payments (Delay)

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware of the delay which contributors to the National Health Scheme are experiencing in obtaining payment of sickness benefits; and whether he will take steps to ensure that applications for benefits are dealt with more speedily by his Department.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I am not aware of any general delay in the payment of claims to sickness benefit. I am writing to the hon. and gallant Member about one case which he has raised with me.

Poles (Assistance)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of National Insurance under what authority


11,000 Poles are receiving free maintenance in camps and hostels of the National Assistance Board; how many others are receiving assistance allowances from the Board; what are the qualifications for receiving this assistance; and what is the total cost.

Mr. J. Griffiths: These hostels are provided under Section 3 of the Polish Resettlement Act, 1947. The number of allowances to Poles outside these hostels is estimated at about 1,000. These allowances are payable according to need under the National Assistance Act, 1948. The total net cost of this provision is at present about £1 million a year.

Mr. Hynd: Why should they be given free maintenance? Does it mean that although those Poles are now out of uniform, the taxpayer is still having to pay almost as much money to keep them?

Mr. Griffiths: The free maintenance is provided under the Polish Resettlement Act which is not Departmentally my responsibility. Under the National Assistance Act, any resident in this country is entitled to apply for assistance and to receive it on the terms laid down by this House.

Mr. Scollan: May I ask the Minister if it is not, in his opinion, a disgrace to this country that we should be carrying 11,000 able-bodied people at a time when we are crying out for workers?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the great debt of gratitude we owe to the Poles for the assistance they gave us during the war?

Mr. Tolley: Will my right hon. Friend make inquiries about the many complaints which are being received from displaced persons of British origin who are enjoying similar accommodation but are being charged heavy fees while they know that these people are living upon the British taxpayers free? It is causing great indignation and there should certainly be an investigation made into it.

Mr. Griffiths: My responsibility is for the Assistance Board, whose responsibility it is to provide assistance in accordance with the Act to anybody who applies for it and who is in need.

Ministry (Staff)

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of National Insurance how many persons are employed in discovering and dealing with those who have not joined the National Insurance Scheme.

Mr. J. Griffiths: There is no staff specifically allocated to this duty. It is part of the duties of the staff of 750 Inspectors, which is approximately the same number as that of the staff employed for this purpose under the previous schemes.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will the Minister say what is his estimate of the numbers who have not joined in this scheme?

Mr. Griffiths: That is a different question.

Benefit Rights (German Women)

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of National Insurance whether there is any arrangement whereby German women who volunteer for work in this country under schemes organised by his Department may carry over on their return to Germany the insurance rights to which they have become entitled as a result of their compulsory contributions arising from their employment here.

Mr. J. Griffiths: No, Sir. There is at present no basis for a reciprocal agreement with Germany, and this is the only way in which under the insurance scheme provision for such a carry over of rights could be made.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that these German women are coming here for limited periods under schemes sponsored by the British Ministry of Labour for our convenience rather than for their own, and does he consider it fair that they should have to pay these heavy contributions without arrangements being made for them to draw full benefit from them?

Mr. Griffiths: In reply to the first part of that question, I could not allow these women to stand outside our insurance scheme and differentiate them from other workers in this respect. The question of the carry-over of benefits when they go back to Germany can be covered only by reciprocal arrangement. If at any time that becomes possible I will certainly investigate it.

Mrs. Castle: Surely, the responsibility to initiate such discussions lies at our end and should be undertaken by, presumably, my right hon. Friend?

Mr. Griffiths: These arrangement are made between two Governments, and I should think it was obvious that for various reasons there would be difficulties.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Building Industry

Mrs. Jean Mann: asked the Minister of Labour how many trainees in the building trades completed their training and are now engaged in house building; and, in view of the shortage of labour in Scotland for house building, will he extend the scheme immediately.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): About 52,000 men after training in the Government Training Centres have entered the Building Industry, but there are no statistics to show which of them are engaged in house building. I am looking into the present position in Scotland.

Mrs. Mann: If my right hon. Friend looks into this position will he not find that men have been taken from the employment exchanges to remove slag heaps, known in Scotland as "bings," by hand; and would it not be much more sensible to train these men for the building of houses?

Mr. Isaacs: I have been asked a Question about men employed on house building. I do not know anything about these "bing boys," but I will look into the matter.

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Labour (1) if he is aware that the programme of house building in Scotland is being limited because of a shortage of certain types of building trade labour; and what steps he is taking to increase the supply;
(2) what particular shortages of building trade labour are the limiting factors in house building in Scotland.

Mr. Isaacs: There has recently been a continuing shortage of certain craftsmen, notably carpenters, plasterers, painters and slaters, which slows up the completion of houses. I am looking into the position.

Agricultural Workers, Cornwall

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Minister of Labour what was the total number of unemployed agricultural workers in Cornwall for the week ended 20th November or to the nearest date available.

Mr. Isaacs: Fifty-seven men and nine women at 13th September. Corresponding figures are not available for any later date.

Mr. Marshall: Can the Minister give any explanation why these workers should be unemployed?

Mr. Isaacs: It is because—I do not say this facetiously—at present there happen to be no farmers who want to employ them.

Major Bruce: Can my right hon. Friend give comparable figures for the year 1933?

Hon. Members: 1931.

Mr. Beechman: Would the Minister see that the figures now being obtained are made known to us, because I have no idea what are the present figures and should be very much obliged if I could have details?

Mr. Isaacs: I am not quite sure which figures the hon. and learned Member is asking should be made known.

Mr. Tiffany: Are these unemployed agricultural workers allowed to enter other industries in order that they shall not remain unemployed?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. If there is no work for an agricultural worker in his own industry, we endeavour to place him in other work.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries aware of these figures, and will the right hon. Gentleman impress upon that Minister the need to concentrate upon a proper horticultural policy?

Mr. Isaacs: I do not think it is necessary to press that other point, of which, I believe, note is taken. I can, however, assure the hon. Member that where these figures occur, we shall consult my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture to see whether there is any reasonable opportunity of employing them in their own industry.

Mr. Beechman: I do not think the Minister quite understood my question; perhaps I had not correctly heard his reply. He said he had the figures only to 13th September. All I wanted to know was the recent figures, so that we may be aware of full and up-to-date details.

Mr. Isaacs: I said that I did not understand the question which the hon. and learned Gentleman had asked. Certainly, I will let him know the figures.

Labour Disputes (Lost Time)

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Minister of Labour what was the estimated loss to the country during the last three years, in man-hours and in value, caused by shipping strikes; and how this compares with the estimated loss for a comparable period after the 1914–18 world war.

Mr. Isaacs: The number of days lost by industrial disputes involving stoppage of work by seagoing employees of shipping companies reported to my Department in the period from V.E. Day to the end of October was 1,000. The figure for the corresponding period after the first war was 140,000. It is not possible to estimate the loss in man-hours and value.

Mr. Blackburn: May I ask the Minister to make sure that these and comparable figures, which show the wonderful record of this country in this respect, are given publicity?

Vice-Admiral Taylor: May I ask the Minister what steps the Government have taken to stop these unofficial strikes?

Mr. Isaacs: We have tried to stop the causes which give rise to them.

Major Bruce: asked the Minister of Labour how many working days have been lost through industrial disputes since the end of the last war; and how many were lost during the comparable period after the 1914–18 war.

Mr. Isaacs: The number of days lost through industrial disputes causing stoppage of work from V.E. Day to the end of October, 1948, was 8½ million. The days lost in the corresponding period after the 1914–18 war were 157½ million.

Major Bruce: Does not my right hon. Friend think that these figures reflect very great credit on the country as a whole, and will he see that copies of

these figures are supplied to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill)?

Mr. Isaacs: I think it is proper to say that these figures reflect credit on those engaged in industry in this country in bringing about such good industrial relationships that they are able to adjust matters without so many disputes.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman say, in both instances, what were the percentages of unofficial and official strikes?

Mr. Isaacs: I have already indicated in a previous answer that we have no information which enables us to differentiate between the two.

"Closed Shop" Conditions

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Minister of Labour if he will give an assurance that the machinery of his Department will not be used to assist in the imposition of a closed shop by any employer.

Mr. Isaacs: There can be no question of refusing on these grounds to submit an applicant who wants a job on the terms the employer is prepared to offer.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does that answer mean that this is one of the many matters upon which the Government just have no policy?

Mr. Isaacs: It means exactly the opposite: that the Government's policy of not interfering in relationships between employers and workpeople has been maintained.

Disabled Persons

Mr. Attewell: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act, 1944; the total number unemployed and the number unemployed for 12 months and over; and the number severely disabled and in need of sheltered employment, respectively.

Mr. Isaacs: Nine hundred and seven thousand eight hundred and ninety-nine at 1st October, 1948. Of these 73,975 were unemployed, including about 20,000 who had been unemployed for 12 months or over. The number unemployed includes 10,660 classified as unlikely,


owing to the nature and severity of their disablement, to get employment except under sheltered conditions.

Mr. Attewell: Will the Minister indicate what steps are to be taken in order that more of these people may be employed in normal work, apart from those in need of help?

Mr. Isaacs: As regards normal employment, we rind that where the unemployment is heaviest we get the greater proportion of these disabled persons whom it is difficult to place. In reference to the others, very active steps are taken to continue the policy of building factories for the extremely disabled men.

Mr. Chetwynd: How many have been placed in sheltered employment?

Mr. Isaacs: In the 30 factories now operating, 1,685 have been placed and 86 are working in their own homes. There are 90 other factories under construction or being planned and we anticipate that when they are in operation they will completely absorb the balance of the disabled persons.

Mr. Murray: How many are on the waiting list for training disabled men?

Mr. Isaacs: The balance of this 10,000 odd. The great majority of those who go into the sheltered factories have had no training; they get training before they go into the factories.

German Women

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Labour how many German women to date have responded to invitations by his Department to volunteer for work in this country; what is the period of their contracts; and in what type of work they are being placed.

Mr. Isaacs: Up to 20th November 5,400 had volunteered and 4,460 had been accepted. One thousand six hundred have arrived here for a period of two years and have been placed in essential domestic work in hospitals, hostels and farmers' households, except for a small number allocated to nursing training and to textiles in Scotland.

Mrs. Castle: Will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that in operating these schemes in the future the German trade unions are consulted, as failure to do that in the past has caused some concern?

Mr. Isaacs: At the moment the German trade unions do not come into the picture because these women have not been in other employment and are not, therefore, members of a trade union.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: If these girls have proved unsatisfactory or possibly have come in under false pretences, is there any machinery for returning them to Germany?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: In allowing these women to come in, is any priority given to those married to ex-German prisoners who have been civilianised in this country?

Mr. Isaacs: I could not give an answer to that question without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL SERVICE

Call-up

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Labour whether it is the practice to call up a young man who has served a short period of regular engagement in one of the services for National Service in the same service.

Mr. Isaacs: This would depend on whether the young man was acceptable to the Service concerned.

Commander Noble: Can the Minister say whether there is any check-up on these cases, because I know of a young man who, after serving a short period in the Navy, has now been called up for National Service in the Army?

Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir. There is a check-up. We find, however, that some young men who volunteer and join a Service prove unsuitable for that particular Service, and we cannot, therefore, return them to the Service for which they have been found to be unsuitable.

Commander Noble: Will the Minister consider this case if I send him details?

Mr. Isaacs: Certainly, Sir.

Building Trade Workers

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour how many men previously employed as building workers are now in His Majesty's Forces.

Mr. Isaacs: I regret that this information is not available.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware that this information is absolutely vital to our manpower problem, and is he further aware that Scottish local authorities are gravely alarmed by the number of building workers who have been taken into the Army and want them back on their housing schemes?

Mr. Isaacs: We could not get the information for which the hon. Member asks without taking a check of every man in the Forces to ask what had been his civilian employment. We do know the employment of those whom we sent into the Forces under the National Service Scheme but not of those who enlisted prior to the operation of that scheme.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Tuberculosis

Mrs. Mann: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if his attention has been directed to the increased incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis in Scotland, and the steep increase in the mortality rate; and if he will allocate increased capital expenditure to Scottish housing for the prevention of further increase of this disease.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I am fully aware of the position and at my request the Scottish Health Services Council have set up a Committee specially to advise me on the problem. The Committee has begun its investigations. Arrangements were made in August for an additional allocation of 1,000 permanent aluminium bungalows to Scotland for distribution to those areas where the problem is most acute.

Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while the August allocation was very welcome, it is not nearly enough and, in view of the great increase in the incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis, does he agree that it is far too long to wait on the Committee reporting, that the houses are more necessary and if we do not have them soon we shall need to have hospitals?

Mr. Woodburn: The two points have nothing in common. The houses are not

waiting on the Committee reporting. The Medical Committee are reporting on the medical aspect. We have not to wait on the medical report to know that houses are necessary, but because of the figures published, I took steps to see that these houses were placed at the disposal of the authorities.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: In view of the fact that a large number of workers have been discharged from factories making aluminium houses, can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that additional houses to which he referred will be provided?

Mr. Woodburn: That anticipates a Question which is later on the Order Paper.

Mr. McGovern: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is very grave dissatisfaction in Glasgow at the rate of house building and that the concentrated attacks which are being made are against him as being responsible for this policy? While contrasts are constantly made with England, will my right hon. Friend remember that Glasgow is one of the worst housed cities in the country?

Mr. Woodburn: That also anticipates a later Question.

Mr. Gallacher: Will the terms of reference include a study of the conditions and remuneration for nurses who are to deal with this very serious disease in Glasgow?

Major Guy Lloyd: In view of the deplorable conditions of housing in Glasgow, of which the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends know, is it not time that Socialist speakers in Scotland stopped boasting about the housing progress made by this Government?

Mr. Carmichael: Apart from the general complaint on housing, will my right hon. Friend take steps to examine the quota allocated by local authorities to tuberculosis cases because, in my opinion, the number is far too low, particularly in the city of Glasgow.

Mr. Woodburn: In addition to these houses specially allocated, local authorities are allocating a proportion of houses to tuberculosis patients. That must be left to the discretion of local authorities in considering all the circumstances.

Mrs. Mann: I do not feel that the last part of my Question has been answered. Could I have the assurance of my right hon. Friend that if it is necessary the extra additional capital expenditure will be forthcoming this year?

Mr. Woodburn: The local authorities in Scotland have as many houses as they can possibly complete next year and therefore no addition to the capital expenditure would make any difference to the number of houses to be completed next year.

Herring Industry (Equipment)

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether the Herring Industry Board have any plans for the development of the mechanically driven net roller, recently used in the drifter-trawler "Dauntless Star" at Lowestoft, when 100 cran of herring and 80 nets were hauled aboard in record time; and whether every encouragement and assistance will be given to extend the use of labour saving devices in the herring fishing industry.

Mr. Woodburn: The Herring Industry Board are always anxious to encourage the extension and development of suitable labour-saving devices in the herring industry; they are at present investigating the subject of mechanically driven net rollers such as that installed in the motor drifter "Dauntless Star," but are not yet in a position to state their conclusions.

Mr. Evans: Are the Herring Industry Board competent to make grants to individual drifters in respect of any invention which comes out as a labour saving device?

Mr. Woodburn: I should like notice of that question.

Housing

Mr. Willis: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will expand the aluminium house emergency programme to enable those local authorities anxious to receive an increased quota to do so.

Mr. William Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that 1,000 workers employed in manufacture of aluminium houses at Blackburn

(Dumbarton) Ltd.'s factory have been discharged since July; whether their dismissal is occasioned by shortage of material; and what steps he is taking to ensure that this labour force is fully employed to meet Scotland's housing needs.

Mr. Woodburn: It has been decided that the resources available for building houses should henceforward be concentrated on the building of permanent houses. In consequence of this decision, the building of temporary and permanent substandard size houses is coming to an end. A proportion of this firm's workers is being discharged as its orders for the aluminium houses reach completion. The firm are, however, developing a new type of house which, if successful, may enable them to re-employ a number of their discharged workers.

Mr. Willis: How is this emergency programme of 1,000 fixed; and would not an increase in this programme help to solve some of the labour difficulties about which we had a reply earlier this afternoon?

Mr. Ross: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the local authorities still demand this type of house and as last week he said that shortage of labour was the limiting factor in housing, is he prepared to allow this labour to be dissipated and not get on with the job?

Mr. Woodburn: This is dependant on a principle laid down that temporary housing and substandard size housing is to come to an end. That is a question of policy, which cannot be debated by question and answer.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is it right to abandon this temporary housing policy without a complete assurance to Scotland that alternative permanent houses will be provided?

Mr. Woodburn: I have already said in the answer to the original Question:
The firm are, however, developing a new type of house
which is a permanent house and
which, if successful, may enable them to re-employ a number of their discharged workers.

Mr. William Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has


considered the protest regarding Kilmarnock's 1949 housing allocation from Bonnyton Ward Committee; and what reply he has made.

Mr. Woodburn: I hope soon to be in a position to write to the Town Council about their programme for 1949.

Mr. Ross: Surely the Secretary of State realises that unless new houses are started there will not be any houses to finish by 1950?

Mr. Woodburn: We are in constant touch with all the local authorities, including Kilmarnock, on their programmes, and that point is being carefully borne in mind.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what special steps are being taken to deal with the housing of tuberculosis patients in Glasgow.

Mr. Woodburn: I understand that the Corporation allocate 90 per cent. of new houses to families from overcrowded dwellings, of which 10 per cent. are allocated to tuberculosis families. In addition, 400 permanent aluminium houses have been allocated to Glasgow out of the special programme of 1,000 for areas where the incidence of tuberculosis is high.

Mr. Rankin: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that fairly welcome news, may I ask him whether he is aware that at this moment, 1,500 houses are needed immediately in Glasgow to deal with open cases of pulmonary tuberculosis, and at present that need is being met at the rate of 200 houses per year, and that, therefore, this 400 additional houses will not half meet the problem?

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) how many local authorities have their housing programmes in balance;
(2) what steps are being taken to encourage local authorities whose housing programmes are in balance to proceed with new schemes.

Mr. Woodburn: So far as we can judge on our present information very few local authorities in Scotland are in balance with their housing programme. As local authorities get into balance I am ready to consider their position and

in a few cases I have found it possible to authorise the commencement of new building.

Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend tell us what steps he is taking to urge local authorities to get their housing schemes in balance?

Mr. Woodburn: Every possible step is taken. If any local authorities need prodding they will be prodded, but it is fair to say that local authorities in Scotland; are doing everything possible in the circumstances in relation to labour and material to get their housing programmes in balance.

Mr. Willis: Arising from my right hon. Friend's original answer, which was not too clear, is he prepared to allow local authorities whose programmes are in balance to go ahead? Can my right hon. Friend give a categorical assurance on that point?

Mr. Woodburn: I have already answered that question.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses have been allocated to Fife for 1949; how many of these are to meet present needs; and how many reserved for in coming mineworkers.

Mr. Woodburn: It is proposed to start work on 598 miners' houses in Fife in 1949, half of which will be for resident miners and half for miners coming from other districts. In addition it is proposed to start 66 houses for agricultural workers and I am prepared, if house building progress in the county warrants it, to consider the starting of further houses for general needs.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the urgent need for housing both for miners coming into Fife and for those already there, will the Secretary of State immediately take up the question of a bigger allocation of houses to Fife?

Mr. Woodburn: I have just given the hon. Member a very favourable answer. I suggest that he should study it.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what materials used in the construction of houses are at present in short supply.

Mr. Woodburn: The materials position has improved in recent months but a greater production by the industries concerned of certain types of cast iron goods and of electrical cable is required to meet the current needs of housing schemes. In addition, while substantial stocks of timber are now held in this country, it is still not possible to remove controls over the allocation of timber to meet the housing demands of local authorities because of the many other priority claims which have to be considered.

Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Would it be true to say that the slow progress in building is in no way due to the shortage of materials?

Mr. Woodburn: The progress of housing depends on a great many factors. The principal factor curtailing building completion at the moment is certain classes of labour, as my right hon. Friend has just stated. Undoubtedly quicker completion could take place if the labour were there.

Sir T. Moore: Is not the real factor the restrictions imposed by the Government upon the building of houses for sale?

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could the Secretary of State say what are these priority claims over housing, and are armaments to be one of those claims?

Mr. Woodburn: My hon. Friend has been pressing me to proceed more speedily with the supply of water. Factories are required for people to work in, and a great many other things which contribute to the progress of the community have to be considered as well as housing.

Mr. Rankin: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the chief difficulty is the tremendous lack of attention which the Tory Party paid to this problem in the period before the war?

Police Forces

Mr. Ross: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if any local all-rank committees have been set up in the Scottish police forces.

Mr. Woodburn: So far as I am aware no such committee has yet been set up,

but I hope that Scottish chief constables generally will decide to give effect to the recommendation on this subject, in the Report by His Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary for Scotland. The Report was published on 26th October and I am bringing this recommendation to the notice of the chief constables.

New Town, Ayrshire

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress is being made in the plans for a new town for miners in Ayrshire.

Mr. Woodburn: Comprehensive plans for the expanding central Ayrshire coalfield, including the proposed new town at Drongan, are now being worked out in detail by my Department in consultation with the County Council and the National Coal Board. I expect to be in a position to announce early next year the result of these investigations.

Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister give us an assurance that these new towns in Scotland will not be curtailed under the capital investment cuts?

Mr. Woodburn: The development of this particular new town is not dependent upon the capital investment cuts but on the time taken and the progress made in opening up the new coalfield.

House Rents, Fife

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware of the feeling in Fife arising out of a recent decision of the county council to increase rents; and will he consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the possibility of fixing a reduced interest rate or an increased subsidy in order to keep the rents down.

Mr. Woodburn: It is a matter for the discretion of local authorities to arrange an equitable rent policy for their houses, and they are free to increase or reduce rents accordingly. I have had no suggestions made that Fife do not exercise a wise and fair discretion in this matter. Borrowing is of course now governed by the Local Authorities Loans Act, 1945, and local authorities now receive loans on the most favourable terms possible.

Mr. Gallacher: Is not the Secretary of State aware that in Fife, as in other parts


of the country, rents are going up, and that people who are most in need of houses, particularly those threatened with, or suffering from, tuberculosis, are finding it more and more difficult to pay the rent, and in some cases have had to vacate their houses? Would the right hon. Gentleman take up with the Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of a reduction in the interest rate or an increased subsidy in order to avoid the necessity for increased rents?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Since this problem involves the whole question of the increased cost of building, what attention is the right hon. Gentleman paying to that problem, by dealing with which the matter can alone be solved.

Mr. Woodburn: I would suggest to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that he should bring the specific cases he mentions to the notice of the Fife County Council, who I am quite sure do not know about them, otherwise they would attend to them under their own powers.

Mr. Scollan: Is there to be an opportunity for the Government to go into the whole question of rents, because we have new housing schemes in which there are varying costs for the same accommodation, and for which two or three different rents can be charged? Is it not time that the whole matter was gone into?

Mr. Woodburn: I agree that it is a difficult problem. Power already exists for the local authorities to deal with this matter. Some local authorities have dealt with it in one way; others have not dealt with it in quite the same way. It would be quite improper for the Government to impose any uniform scheme upon them.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

Tuberculosis Patients

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Pensions how many ex-Service men, pensioners of both the first and second world wars, are now in hospitals or sanatoria suffering from tuberculosis; and how many of these have been treated with streptomycin.

The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Marquand): About 4,000 ex-Service disablement pensioners of both world wars are at present receiving in-patient treatment for tuberculosis connected with their war service. Streptomycin treatment for tuberculosis is the concern of the Health Departments and I understand that no separate record is kept of the number of war pensioners who have received such treatment.

Mr. Bossom: Could the Minister give an assurance to the House that all patients likely to benefit from this treatment are getting it?

Mr. Marquand: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, or my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, or both.

Mr. Bossom: Could the Minister consult his right hon. Friends on this matter and try to get some result? These men are suffering, could not he help them?

Mr. Marquand: I have no reason to suppose for a moment that every possible care is not being taken of these patients.

Disability Pensions

Mr. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Pensions what increases in Service disability pensions he is now prepared to make to bring them in line with the new Service rates.

Mr. Marquand: As I announced in July last, the Government does not consider that an all round increase in disability pensions is justified. This decision is not affected by the recent changes in Service pay. The Government have war pensions constantly under review independently of changes in Service pay and numerous improvements in allowances have been made.

Mr. Langford-Holt: In view of the fact that the same cost of living affects the pensions and affects Service pay, and also that this reluctance on the part of the Minister is certainly acting as a deterrent in the recruiting campaign, could he not reconsider the matter?

Mr. Marquand: I do not believe that the rate of pension affects recruiting at all. The increase in Service pay may indeed be an inducement.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Does not the Minister think the time has now come to appoint a Select Committee to investigate this whole problem?

Mr. Marquand: I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Member knew the answer to that one.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Deserters, Germany and Austria

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for War how many soldiers have deserted from British Forces in Germany and Austria since the occupation commenced; and how many are still at large.

The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): At 31st October 3,513 soldiers had deserted from British Army units in Germany since V.E. Day; 293 absentees and deserters were still at large. In Austria 286 had deserted up to 23rd November; 23 were still at large.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Can the hon. Gentleman say if the numbers of deserters are decreasing or increasing?

Mr. Stewart: If the hon. and gallant Member compares the answer which I have just given him with the answer given to him by my right hon. Friend on 24th February, he will see that, of course, the first figure is larger, because that is the figure of the total number of those that have deserted, but the number at large is decreasing.

Arrested Soldiers, Singapore (Trial)

Mr. McGovern: asked the Secretary of State for War the nature of the charges against Private W. Quinn, Private Howland and 19157136 Private A. Milne, of Singapore; the date of arrest in each case; when they are to be tried; if the trial will be by court martial; and if he will give an assurance that they are being provided with competent legal defence.

Mr. M. Stewart: As my hon. Friend has been informed, Private Quinn and Private Howland have been charged jointly with voluntarily causing hurt to commit robbery, and Private Milne has been charged with being in unlawful possession of arms which he is alleged to have disposed of improperly. I am

not aware of the exact dates on which the soldiers were arrested, but from the information in the possession of my Department it would appear that Private Quinn and Private Howland were arrested during June, and Private Milne during August. They are to be tried by the civil power; so far as I am aware, the dates of trial have not yet been fixed. Legal aid is being provided for all three.

Mr. McGovern: Is the Minister aware that the first information coming to the families of these men was that they were informed officially that no legal defence would be provided and that it caused consternation in the minds of these people who are so far removed from their sons? Can he tell the House how it is that men arrested in June have not yet had charges completely brought against them and why he cannot now tell us when these men are to be tried? Is it not a disgrace that men should be held for such a long period?

Mr. Stewart: As 1 pointed out, these men are being tried by the civil power. It is not a Departmental responsibility of the War Department to fix the date of their trial. But the hon. Member will have noticed that we have provided legal aid for these men, and we shall continue to do whatever is proper for them.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Has the Under-Secretary made representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies with a view to having these proceedings expedited?

Mr. Stewart: We will bear that fact in mind.

Mr. McGovern: Can the Minister give the reason why these men were handed over to the civil authority if the guns are alleged to be stolen from the War Office Department, and could he tell us if he has any information at all regarding the date of the trial?

Mr. Stewart: The date of the trial has not yet been fixed. It will also be clear from what I have said that these men were charged with a civil offence.

Mr. Pickthorn: Does His Majesty's Government consider that democracy demands that British privates should be treated in the same way as German generals?

Mr. McGovern: In view of the unsatisfactory way which this Question has been answered, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Stores (Thefts)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he can make a statement as to the extent of the theft of stores in transit from Palestine, India and Pakistan to warehouses in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement regarding the pilfering of Army stores arriving in Britain from bases overseas.

Mr. M. Stewart: Small losses in transit do occur, but they have been infinitesimal in comparison with the quantity of clothing and stores handled.

Mr. Keeling: But would the Under-Secretary answer my Question, which is as to the extent? What is the amount?

Mr. Stewart: During the period between 1st April of this year and 15th November, the discrepancy between the stores received and the consignors' issue vouchers amounted to some 0.16 per cent.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: 0.16 per cent. of what? Can we have some figures?

Mr. Stewart: 0.16 per cent. of the amount consigned.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING

Development Charge

Mr. Bossom: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning if he will issue an explanatory White Paper regarding the payment of betterment charges, with particular reference to charges now being made to persons desiring to build a home.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): The Central Land Board have already published a pamphlet D.1.A. setting out the principles upon which development charge is determined and the arrangements for payment. They have also published a pamphlet, "House 1," giving to buyers and sellers of land for building a house advice in the light

of the liability to a development charge; and a further pamphlet, "House 2," is about to be published explaining the arrangements which have been made for those who bought a plot for a house before 1st July, 1948. I have sent the hon. Member copies of these pamphlets.

Mr. Bossom: Does the Minister realise that the charges now being sent to these people who wish to build houses are causing them great consternation? They buy a piece of land and expect to build a house, and then get these charges. Would the right hon. Gentleman consider issuing a pamphlet explaining fully all these involved statements? The pamphlets published do not explain such matters to these people?

Mr. Silkin: If the hon. Member will read these pamphlets, I am sure he will understand them, and if he understands them I am quite satisfied that most other people will.

Mrs. Leah Manning: rose—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mrs. Manning: I am sorry to interrupt the birthday greetings to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), who has just come in to the Chamber, but may I ask my right hon. Friend whether, in view of the fact that the ordinary men and women do find it extremely difficult to understand these official pronouncements, as instanced by the difficulties we had over the War Damage Commission pronouncements, it would not be possible to circulate to local newspapers the particular pamphlets he has mentioned? Such newspapers are widely read and their editors are used to interpreting official documents in language people can understand.

Mr. Silkin: I would recommend hon. Members to read these pamphlets. I can assure them that they are in very simple language.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that even among architects and surveyors there are a great many people who are completely confused about these regulations and that there is need for greater simplicity?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that there is any confusion today among architects and surveyors. It may be for the benefit of the House if I put these pamphlets


in the Library and then I think that hon. Members would be satisfied that they are in the simplest possible language.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what troubles people is not the language of these pamphlets, but the injustice of them?

Mr. Silkin: That is simply not true. The pamphlets provide for exemption to a very considerable extent from development charge in respect of a number of these cases.

Mr. Bossom: The Minister tried to say that all professional men in the country understand these pamphlets. I can give him the information that they do not. Therefore, will he please give a simple explanation of what he is trying to get at?

Mr. Silkin: Of course, every professional man does not understand them, as is obvious from these questions. but most people do.

Greater London Plan

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning when it is proposed to announce the constitution and personnel of the Planning Board recommended in the Abercrombie Report to be set up to carry out the proposals contained in the Greater London Plan.

Mr. Silkin: A Committee under the chairmanship of the right hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was set up in 1946 to consider the appropriate machinery for securing concerted action in the implementation of a regional plan for London as a whole. Their deliberations have been delayed by the changes made in planning administration by the Act of 1947 and I have not yet had their report. Until I have their report, which I hope to receive shortly, I cannot come to any conclusion on this matter.

Mr. Platts-Mills: As the Minister has already agreed in principle to the setting up of the Planning Board recommended in the Abercrombie Report, does he now say that some other body has been set up to advise him whether he should set up such a planning body, and would he

realise that, as housing in London is getting steadily worse and admirable planning personnel is available, it would be of advantage to all if he could set up the Planning Board under the appropriate Abercrombie Report right away?

Mr. Silkin: The purpose of this Committee was to advise me on the machinery to be set up for the implementation of the Greater London Plan. I am bound to wait until I receive the report of this Committee.

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what are the reasons for the delay in announcing the new road plan, the recommendation for which was embodied in the Abercrombie Plan for Greater London; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Silkin: The Memorandum on London Regional Planning. issued by my Department in May, 1947, embodied the conclusions of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and myself on the majority of the road proposals of the Greater London Plan. The remainder of the proposals required further investigation. This is now in progress, and when my right hon. Friend and I have reached decisions. these will be announced.

Mr. Platts-Mills: Is the Minister aware that the siting on the plan of one road alone—that is the London "A" ring road—is causing delay in the formulation or completion of plans in a number of boroughs, including, I need scarcely say, Finsbury; and would he, with his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, speed up a decision as to where this and other roads are to be so that we can build some houses in places where the roads will not be?

Mr. Silkin: Certainly I will speed up the decision, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the "A" ring road is an enormous project involving a vast sum of money and I will not be rushed into a decision about it.

Mr. Piratin: Is the Minister aware that a number of local authorities in London are actually permitting the population to increase to a figure beyond that laid down in the County of London Report, and would the Minister take such steps as will prevent this increase in population?

Mr. Silkin: That may be true, but it has nothing whatever to do with this Question.

Mr. Piratin: On a point of Order. There may have been some misunderstanding. I want to make it perfectly clear that the purpose of my supplementary question was to point out—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Piratin: This is a point of explanation.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order. The hon. Member asked a supplementary question and the House heard it. I have no doubt that the House understood why he asked it.

Mr. Piratin: With respect, it seemed to me that there may have been some misunderstanding——

Mr. Speaker: We have only five minutes left and we had better not delay matters further.

Mr. Platts-Mills: asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning what progress has been made in carrying out the recommendations of the Abercrombie Plan for the decentralisation of population and industry in the Greater London area, and in particular, in which areas there has been a reduction in the density of the population to the recommended figure of 136 persons per acre.

Mr. Silkin: Work on site preparation is in progress at four new towns around London. Corporations have been set up for two other such new towns and two more proposals are under consideration. In addition, schemes for the expansion of selected towns are being worked out by the local authorities concerned and a phased building programme for all developments proposed for the accommodation of population and industry from London is also in preparation. No permanent reduction of the density of population in inner areas is possible until the economic situation permits the large-scale building of houses in the new towns and other reception centres.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Factory Extensions (Development Charge)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will now state the

arrangements for offsetting development charges under the Town and Country Planning Act in cases where a factory extension is to be built on land already held for the purpose.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): This matter has been carefully considered, but I have reached the conclusion that it is not possible to extend to land developed for additional factories the special arrangements made for land developed for a house for the owner's occupation. The treatment to be given to claimants of this kind will be a matter for consideration in framing the Treasury scheme under Section 58 of this Act.

Mr. Hurd: In the meantime, are the Central Land Board to continue to make wild guesses at the amount that may be charged?

Sir S. Cripps: In the meantime, they will continue to carry out their job under the Act.

Mr. Janner: Is the Chancellor aware that this is holding up some very important extensions connected with the export drive, and could he possibly take into consideration special cases to enable people to proceed with their work?

Sir S. Cripps: It is quite impossible to make any regulations of this kind for special cases.

Defence Bonds

Sir John Mellor: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether his attention has been called to the statement on page six of the "National Savings News Letter," dated 13th November, that for 31 weeks since 1st April receipts were £466 million and repayments £472 million; whether the receipts included the amount of Defence Bonds sold; whether the repayments included the amount of Defence Bonds repaid at maturity; and what correction is required in the figures to reflect all transactions in Defence Bonds.

Sir S. Cripps: Defence Bonds sold are included, and Defence Bonds repaid on maturity are excluded, but the figures need no correction as Defence Bonds maturities have never been included in the weekly statements of net savings issued by the National Savings Committee.

Sir J. Mellor: As the public have so far been grossly misinformed about this matter, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman see that the true figures are published in the next issue of the "News Letter"?

Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. The public have not been misinformed. The position was made perfectly clear when the figures were first issued.

National Insurance Funds (Investments)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the total amount of capital investments in the National Health Insurance and Unemployment Funds; and whether he will give details of the securities held and their cost price.

Sir S. Cripps: Accounts showing the nominal amounts of securities held in the National Health Insurance and Unemployment Funds at 4th July, 1948, the closing date before transfer of the Funds to the National Insurance Funds, will shortly be laid before the House. Fuller particulars of these Funds have been given in the National Health Insurance Fund Accounts for the year ended 31st December, 1946 (House of Commons Paper 107) and in the Unemployment Fund Accounts, 1946–47 (House of Commons Paper 108), and final Accounts for the closing period to 4th July, 1948, will be laid before the House early next year. In accordance with long-established practice, I am not prepared to anticipate or add to the information given to Parliament under Statute.

Sir W. Smithers: Will the Chancellor give an undertaking that when these particulars are published he will give the cost price of the securities in the list?

Sir S. Cripps: They will be given in accordance with the statutory requirements.

"Industrial Bulletin " Information

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the fact that the Bulletin of Industry is issued at the cost of the taxpayer, he will, in order to make the information therein contained more helpful and complete, include tables showing the purchasing power of the £ for the past 10 years and the increase in dividends, wages and profits for the same period.

Sir S. Cripps: The information referred to by the hon. Member was published in its latest available form last April and is not therefore appropriate to the "Industrial Bulletin," which is a review of current economic developments. The suggestion will, however, be borne in mind when fresh figures are published.

Sir W. Smithers: As this "Industrial Bulletin" is really nothing more than Socialist propaganda, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman stop the publication of it altogether?

Sir S. Cripps: Obviously, the hon. Member has never read it.

Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order. I protest against these rude answers.

Post-war Credits

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will introduce legislation authorising payment of post-war credits to the next-of-kin of deceased creditors.

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot anticipate my Budget statement.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that no serious administrative difficulty stands in the way of such a concession if he decided to make it?

Sir S. Cripps: I cannot even anticipate that part of the Budget statement.

Foreign Countries (Assistance)

Major Bruce: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of aid granted by Britain to other countries since the end of the war, distinguishing between amounts loaned and outright gifts or grants.

Sir S. Cripps: Aid by the United Kingdom to other countries since the end of the war to the middle of 1948 amounted to approximately £870 million in cash, goods and services, of which £470 million are recoverable. These figures do not include grants to be made available under the Intra-European Payments Scheme.

Major Bruce: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give the very widest publicity to these figures, as there are


quite a number of evilly-disposed people wishing it to be known that this country acts only as a beggar?

Sir S. Cripps: I hope the widest publicity will be given to them.

Mr. Scollan: May I ask the Chancellor if he will give us figures of the cost of the aid given to Berlin due to the air lift?

Sir S. Cripps: That is not included in these figures.

Economic Programme

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. PETER THORNEYCROFT:

48. To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he proposes to publish the Economic Programme for Great Britain recently submitted to the O.E.E.C. in Paris.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In view of the great importance of Question No. 48, and in view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is leaving for Paris today to discuss the subject-matter of that Question, may I ask if the answer to it may be given now, Mr. Speaker, by your leave?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I have no power in that matter. We took a long time over Questions. This is the day for Scottish Questions, and I have given hon. Members opportunities for asking supplementary questions.

OVERSEAS FOOD CORPORATION (QUESTIONS)

Captain Crookshank: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you are now in a position to give your promised Ruling regarding the refusal of the Minister of Food to answer questions about the Overseas Food Corporation?

Mr. Speaker: I think it might be more convenient if we had a short Debate before I gave any Ruling. I think it would help me very considerably, and that it might also help hon. Members. Any Ruling that I gave now might, perhaps, rather prejudice further proceedings, and, therefore, I am prepared, on the Christmas Adjournment, if hon. Members so wish, to allot a certain

amount of time to a Debate on that matter.

Captain Crookshank: I think that will suit us very well, because the same considerations may well apply not only to the Overseas Food Corporation, which was the actual context of the Question, but to other Corporations which are envisaged in Bills before the House.

Sir S. Cripps: I think the method that you have suggested, Mr. Speaker, will be very convenient.

PETITIONS (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)

Mr. Speaker: There is another matter which I would mention to the House. I promised to give a Ruling about Petitions. The House will remember that a Petition was presented by the junior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Herbert), and that he caused it to be read. I said that I would look into this matter, and I indicated on a recent occasion that I would refer again to the subject of an hon. Member presenting a public Petition and requiring it to be read by the Clerk.
The precedents show clearly that the concluding words of Standing Order No. 92—" it may be read by the Clerk if required"—mean" if required by the hon. Member presenting the Petition." These words convey an absolute right to have a Petition read, and other hon. Members could not prevent it by expressing objection.
But to require one or more Petitions to be read must so curtail Question Time as to impose a considerable hardship on hon. Members who desire to obtain oral answers to their Questions. I express the hope, therefore, that hon. Members presenting Petitions will refrain, so far as possible, from requiring them to be read.

Mr. Alpass: May I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in reference to the presenting of Petitions? I am aware that, with regard to a certain Petition, misrepresentations have been made to persons who were asked to sign it. I myself have been approached. The nature of the Petition was misrepresented to me, and I corrected it. What steps are taken to ensure that people who sign Petitions understand what they are doing, and that their signatures are not obtained by misrepresentation?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I can give no guidance about that. If any person comes to an hon. Member and says "Please present a Petition for me," I really think that it is up to the hon. Member concerned to see that he is not misled in any way. I cannot help in any way on that matter.

CEYLON (GIFT OF MACE AND SPEAKER'S CHAIR)

Committee to consider of an humble Address to be presented to His Majesty, praying that His Majesty will give directions that a Mace and Speaker's Chair

be presented on behalf of this House to the House of Representatives of Ceylon and assuring His Majesty that this House will make good the expenses attending the same, upon Thursday.—[Mr. Whiteley.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

The House divided: Ayes, 258; Noes, 122.

Division No. 20.]
AYES
[3.35 p.m.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Driberg, T. E. N.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Jenkins, R. H.


Alpass, J. H.
Dumpleton, C. W
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Dye, S.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Attewell, H. C.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Austin, H. Lewis
Edelman, M.
Keenan, W.


Awbery, S. S.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Kendall, W. D.


Ayles, W H.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Kenyon, C.


Balfour, A
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Barton, O.
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Kinghorn, Sqn. Ldr. E.


Battley, J. R
Evans, E, (Lowestoft)
Kinley, J.


Bechervaise, A. E
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Kirby, B. V.


Benson, G.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Kirkwood, Rt Hon D


Beswick, F.
Ewart, R.
Lang, G.


Binns, J
Farthing, W. J.
Lavers, S.


Blackburn, A. R.
Fernyhough, E
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Blyton, W R,
Field, Capt. W. J
Leslie, J. R.


Bottomley, A G.
Follick, M.
Levy, B. W.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Foot, M. M.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Forman, J. C.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Bramail, E A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Ljpson. D. L.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gallacher, W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Logan, D. G


Brown, George (Belper)
George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Longden, F.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gilzean, A.
Lyne, A. W


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McAdam, W.


Burden, T. W.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Wakefield)
McEntee, V. La T


Burke, W A.
Grey, C. F.
McGhee, H. G.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
McGovern, J.


Byers, Frank
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Mack, J. D.


Callaghan, James
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
McKay, J. (Wallsend)


Carmichael, James
Gunter, R. J.
McLeavy, F.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Guy, W. H.
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)


Chamberlain, R. A
Hale, Leslie
Macpnerson, T. (Romford)


Champion, A. J.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil
Mainwaring, W. H


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Cluse, W. S.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Mann, Mrs. J.


Coldrick, W.
Hardy, E. A.
Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)


Collindridge., F.
Harrison, J.
Marquand, H. A.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Marshall, F. (Brightside)


Cook, T. F.
Haworth, J.
Mellish, R. J.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Middleton, Mrs. L.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hobson, C. R
Mikardo, Ian


Cove, W. G.
Holman, P.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E R


Cripps, Rt Hon. Sir S
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Mitchison, G. R


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Horabin, T. L.
Monslow, W.


Daggar, G.
Hoy, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B


Daines, P.
Hubbard, T.
Morley, R.


Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W)
Mort, D. L


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Moyle, A.


Davies, S. O (Merthyr)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Murray, J. D


Deer, G.
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)
Nally, W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Naylor, T. E.


Delargy, H J.
Janner, B.
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Dodds, N N.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradlord, N.)




Oldfield, W. H.
Royle, C
Tolley, L.


Oliver, G. H.
Scollan, T
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G


Orbach, M.
Segal, Dr. S.
Usborne, Henry


Paget, R. T.
Shackleton, E. A A
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Palmer, A. M. F
Sharp, Granville
Viant, S. P.


Parker, J.
Silkin, Rt. Hon. L
Walker, G. H.


Parkin, B. T.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)


Paton, Mrs. F, (Rushcliffe)
Skeffington, A. M.
Wallace. H W (Walthamstow, E)


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.
Watson, W. M


Pearson, A.
Skinnard, F. W.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Perrins, W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
West, D. G.


Piratin, P.
Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Platts-Mills, J. F. F.
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Popplewell, E
Snow, J W
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E)
Wigg, George


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Stokes, R. R.
Willey, F T. (Sunderland)


Proctor, W. T.
Stross, Dr. B.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Randall, H. E.
Stubbs, A. E
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Ranger, J.
Swingler, S
Williams, W. R (Heston)


Rankin, J,
Sylvester G. O.
Willis, E.


Rees-Williams, D. R.
Symonds, A. L
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Woods, G, S.


Richards, R.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Wyatt, W.


Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Yates, V. F


Robens, A.
Thurtle, Ernest
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Tiffany, S



Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Timmons, J
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Titterington, M. F.
Mr. Simmons and Mr. Wilkins




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Harris, F W. (Croydon, N.)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Barlow, Sir J
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Baxter, A. B.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pickthorn, K.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Hogg, Hon Q
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beechman, N. A.
Hollis, M C.
Price-White, Lt.Col. D


Birch, Nigel
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Bossom, A. C
Hope, Lord J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bower, N.
Howard, Hon. A.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr N. J
Robertson, Sir D (Streatham)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hurd, A.
Ropner, Col. L


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Savory, Prof, D. L


Bullock, Capt. M.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Butcher, H. W
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Smith, E. P (Ashford)


Carson, E.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smithers, Sir W.


Challen, C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Langford-Holt, J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Law, Rt Hon. R. K.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Studholme, H. G.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt Hon. H. F. C
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Taylor, Vice-Adm E. A (P'dd't'n, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Teeling, William


Crowder, Capt John E
McCallum, Maj. D.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Maodonald, Sir P (I. of Wight)
Thomas, J. P. L (Hereford)


De la Bère, R.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Digby, S W.
MoKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorp, Brigadier R A. F


Dower, E. L G. (Caithness)
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Touche, G. C.


Drayson, G B.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Drewe, C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Marsden, Capt A.
Wakefield, Sir W W


Duthie, W. S.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Eccles, D. M.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Watt, Sir G, S Harvie


Elliot, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Walter
Medlicott, Brigadier F
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E, L.
Mellor, Sir J.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Molson, A. H. E.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Fox, Sir G.
Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
York, C.


Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W S (Cirencester)
Young, Sir A S. L. (Partick)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.



Gridley, Sir A.
Nicholson, G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grimston, R. V.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Major Conant and


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Odey, G W.
Colonel Wheatley.


Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision for Civil Defence, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament—

(i) of any expenses incurred by any Minister in discharging functions exercise-able by him under or by virtue of that Act, including any sums required for paying grants or compensation; and
(ii) of any increase resulting from any of the provisions of the said Act in the sums which, under Part I or Part II of the Local Government Act, 1948, fall to be paid out of moneys so provided;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums received under or by virtue of the said Act of the present Session by any Minister."

Orders of the Day — CIVIL DEFENCE BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.-(Civil defence functions of Ministers.)

3.46 p.m.

The Chairman: I understand that it would meet the convenience of the Committee if the first Amendment were discussed along with the last two Amendments on page 90 of the Order Paper.

Mr. Osbert Peake: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out from "be," to the second "of," and to insert "the duty."
I think that the course which you have suggested, Major Milner, will be a convenient one, because it is a little difficult for the Committee to come to a decision on the first Amendment, which is whether the Clause should impose a duty upon the designated Minister or merely allot to him certain functions, without going into some discussion as to who the designated Minister shall be.
Throughout this Bill the phrase is used "the designated Minister" and it is upon him that responsibility in the main rests. It is the designated Minister who will exercise all the very great powers set out in Clause 6. We think that the Bill should place a definite duty upon a

definite Minister. Civil Defence is a matter of vital importance, and we think that it is not sufficient simply to say that the matters set out in Clause 1 shall be part of some one or other Minister's functions. We feel that the Bill should impose a definite duty upon a Minister for the exercise of which he should be answerable to Parliament.
Therefore, we suggest that the opening words of Clause 1 (1) should be:
It shall be the duty of the designated Minister.
The use of the words "designated Minister," seems to imply that the Government have not as yet come to any decision as to which Minister should be primarily responsible for Civil Defence matters. We feel, of course, that the Government might by now have taken a decision upon this matter. If hon. Members will refer to the definition Clause in the Bill—Clause 9 (2)—they will see that it says:
In this Act, the expression 'the designated Minister' means such Minister, or such Ministers acting jointly, as may be designated by Order in Council, and different Ministers may be designated for different purposes or different provisions of this Act.
If we have to use this method of not specifying at this stage who the Minister shall be, we should, o at any rate, like the definition Clause to read:
The designated Minister means such Minister as may be designated by Order in Council,
and simply leave the matter there.
We do not at all like the idea that primary responsibility should be spread over a whole group of Ministers, nor do we like the idea of six or seven different Ministers—for quite a number of Ministers are involved in Civil Defence matters—each prescribing Regulations of the very far-reaching character which are envisaged by Clause 6. Under that Clause wider powers are given to Ministers to proceed by Regulation than in any Bill ever before presented to this House. It seems to us, therefore, that there should be a single Minister charged with responsibility under this Bill. We do not like the idea that the "designated Minister" should mean a group of Ministers each with some part of the responsibility which is laid upon the designated Minister by Clause 1.
Clause 1 already provides, in Subsection (2), that the designated Minister may


make arrangements whereby any of his functions under this Clause may be exercised on his behalf by another Minister. That is quite all right. It is quite proper that the Minister who has the primary responsibility in this matter should be able to delegate functions to other Ministers. In Civil Defence a vast number of different Ministries are concerned. During the war, on occasions I attended the Civil Defence Committee which used to meet every morning, or nearly every morning, at the Home Office. Under the Chairmanship of the Minister of Home Security, as he then was, there used to sit other Ministers or Under-Secretaries drawn, I should think, from eight or nine different Departments. It is perfectly clear that in Civil Defence matters there must be a power of delegation, but it seems to us highly objectionable that the "designated minister" should mean a composite body consisting of perhaps eight, nine or ten different Ministers.
We feel very emphatically that in a matter of this vital importance there should be one Minister who has primary responsibility. It would be quite simple to draw the Bill in that way, to place the primary responsibility upon a single Minister and to give him powers of delegation to other Ministers in regard to part of his functions. I also feel that when Regulations of a most far-reaching character, possibly even providing for a conscript army of Civil Defence Services, are presented to this House, as they may be presented under Clause 6, there should be one Minister who takes responsibility. I think it will be an intolerable position if, when Regulations under Clause 6, providing for all manner of things, are presented to this House, we have to look to perhaps half-a-dozen Ministers to answer for them.
We feel, therefore, that this Bill should put a duty upon a Minister rather than simply say it is part of his functions. After all, there are many Ministers who have many functions and a great many of them they very seldom have any reason to exercise. We feel that this is such an important matter that the word should be "duty"—a duty placed on a single Minister who should be either designated or named in the Bill.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): There are two alternative ways in which this service can

be organised. The right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has advocated one alternative. The structure of the Bill proceeds on the basis of the other alternative. In considering the two alternatives we should bear in mind that this Bill deals with a period of preparation. Much of what the right hon. Gentleman said would have had more force on a Bill to deal with the way in which Civil Defence should be administered after a conflict had broken out.
The Committee are entitled to know the way in which the Government think Civil Defence should be organised on the Ministerial side during the preparation period, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the matter so early in the discussion of the Bill. The ultimate responsibility for the co-ordination of defence as a whole rests with the Defence Committee, of which the Prime Minister is Chairman and the Minister of Defence Deputy-Chairman. Within that field the Home Secretary has general responsibility for co-ordinating the preparation of Civil Defence Measures, as the Minister of Defence has for coordinating functions in respect of the Fighting Services and their supply. For some of the Services directly contributing to Civil Defence, for example the Police and the Fire Services in England and Wales, the Home Secretary has direct responsibility, and in respect of those Services he will be the designated Minister.
Other Ministers will assume direct responsibility for the Services closely connected with their peace-time responsibilities—for example, the Minister of Health for hospitals, the Minister of Transport for roads, railways, docks and harbours, and the Minister of Food for the maintenance and distribution of food supplies. Supervising all these Services are functions which they normally carry out and certainly in this preparatory period they will be the appropriate Ministers to see that adequate preparation is made for Civil Defence. There will be some Services involving more than one Minister and I would take, as an example, the problem of evacuation, which certainly will call on the Ministers of Health, Education, Transport and Food. From my experience of the last war, I think that possibly if the part some of


these Ministries were to play in evacuation had been recognised a little earlier some of the difficulties which arose might have been avoided.
In pursuance of his general functions, the Home Secretary will secure effective collaboration between the Departments which are jointly responsible for Civil Defence measures and will also make certain that there is no overlapping or duplication and that no field of preparation is left uncovered. This necessarily involves much inter-Departmental work. The necessary committee organisation for this purpose has been established at both the Ministerial and the official levels.
4.0 p.m.
That is the set-up which the Government favour, and not the suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman, which might mean the appointment now of a Minister of Home Security, or assigning to one of the sinecure Departments that particular function, or it might mean making the Home Secretary, whose office is certainly no sinecure, the Minister responsible for the whole of these services. That seems to me to involve a machine which does not take into account the necessary detailed work that must be done in the Departments like the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Transport, and the Ministry of Food, with regard to this matter.
It is quite clear that any Minister, whether he be a Minister of Home Security or another Minister, who takes on this duty in addition to his ordinary duties, must rely on those Departmental Ministers to see that the effective detailed work is done. I believe that it will be best done in those Departments which are fully responsible for it; but it will be the duty of the Home Secretary of the day to see that where two Departments have functions that may involve both in a particular service, each does its allocated share, that there is no gap left, and that there is no duplication.
I think, and the Government think, that at this stage it would be quite wrong, in view of the way in which this subject is being approached, for us to set up a separate Ministry of Home Security, or so to concentrate the work in the hands of one Minister that he would be virtually the Minister of Home Security. We have every intention of

seeing that each of the Services is fully prepared, but I think that the responsibility of each of the Government Departments should be put fairly and squarely on that Department, and that the Minister concerned should be directly responsible to the House and to public opinion for the state of preparedness in his particular section of the work.
As to the question of regulations, whether under Clause 6 or any other Clauses of the Bill. Clause 6 deals with a limited but important range of subjects. The regulations to be made under Clause 2 I would regard as being quite as important as those under Clause 6—the regulations imposing duties on local authorities, and so on. It is eminently desirable that the House should be fully aware as to which Minister is responsible for the regulations, and that they should be presented to the House and, if necessary, defended before the House by the Minister at the head of that Department.
There are, then, two alternative ways of doing it. It may very well be that if we were in a crisis period, when we were expecting that the need to put these various powers into force in actual conflict was impending, it would be desirable that there should be a single Minister charged with the duties; but approaching the subject in the way in which this Bill does, it would be a mistake to make one Minister solely responsible. In saying that I do not want in any way to belittle the fact that the Home Secretary of the day will be the person who will be responsible for seeing that the team is working, that the team is working together, and that the whole of the ground is covered.

Sir John Anderson: There are certain observations I should like to submit to the Committee and to the right hon. Gentleman, in no controversial spirit, on this very important question of organisation. The right hon. Gentleman said, quite rightly, that there are two alternative methods of approach, as indicated by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake)—the approach by way of delegation, and the approach by way of designation of a number of Ministers who are to collaborate in building up this structure of Civil Defence. Our first criticism of this Bill is that it seems to adopt both approaches because in


Clause 1 we have the power of delegation by a designated Minister, and in the definition Clause we have clearly in contemplation the designation of a number of Ministers. We think that the attempt to combine those two conceptions is bound to lead to a certain amount of confusion; and in this matter the last thing we want to have is confusion or any doubt as to where responsibility really rests.
The right hon. Gentleman, in describing the conception which the Government have formed in regard to designation of a number of Ministers, made an observation which I think requires rather close scrutiny. He said that in the Government's view the Home Secretary will he the designated Minister in respect, for example, of the police services, and that the Minister of Health or the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Food will be designated in respect of other services.
The first observation I should like to make on that is that there is nothing, so far as I can see, in this Bill which interferes with the ordinary functions of any Departmental Minister. The Home Secretary has functions with regard to the police derived from his constitutional position as Home Secretary and apart from this Bill; and the same is true of the Minister of Health, the Minister of Food and the Minister of Transport. This Bill is concerned with responsibilities in relation to Civil Defence, and only with such responsibilities. I should think that it is quite unnecessary to designate the Home Secretary, for example, as Minister who is responsible for the strict sphere of police duties, for which he is already responsible.
The view that I would submit to the Committee is, that in order to secure effective collaboration—the right hon. Gentleman did not like the word "co-ordination" when he spoke on Second Reading, and I will try to avoid it—in order to try to ensure effective collaboration between a number of Ministers who already have functions which are relevant to Civil Defence as part of their ordinary duties, the simple and straightforward approach is the one advocated by my right hon. Friend, by which one Minister would be designated and would thereby come into the position—which I thought the right hon. Gentleman in his Second Reading speech accurately described as

that of "presiding Minister"—which would then enable him to bring together in relation to Civil Defence, the work of all those other Ministers who already have the functions that are relevant in that connection.
I would not myself be disposed to follow the right hon. Gentleman wholly in the distinction which he sought to draw between the period of preparation and the period of actual emergency. We are, of course, dealing here primarily with the period of preparation, although, no doubt, the provisions of this Bill would carry forward, if occasion should arise, into the period of emergency. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that in the period of preparation preceding the last war, a Minister was entrusted with duties over the whole field of Civil Defence, which duties he derived, in the first instance, entirely by delegation from one Minister—the Home Secretary. That is a fact. The Lord Privy Seal, who was made responsible for the preparatory work in connection with Civil Defence, derived his functions by way of delegation from the Home Secretary, and I do not think that anything but advantage flowed from that procedure. It defined his position as chairman of a body of Ministers in constant session engaged in this preparatory work.
May I pass from that to what the right hon. Gentleman said about the regulations. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds argued, I think very convincingly, in favour of having the regulations made by one designated Minister. That was in fact the position before and during the last war, because then the regulations were made by Order in Council—regulations covering the whole of Civil Defence. They were not Departmental regulations, and for all the defence regulations one Minister was responsible—the Home Secretary. There was great advantage in that. I see a great practical difficulty—and I hope we are dealing with this matter entirely from the practical point of view—in dividing up some of these codes of regulations, and saying, "This is made by one Minister and that is made by another Minister," when they are all designed to dovetail together. I think if we are to abandon, as this Bill proposes, procedure by Order in Council, which imparts a collective responsibility on the


part of the Ministry as a whole it is a very strong argument, especially when we are falling back on procedure by way of Departmental regulations, to have one Minister clearly designated, whether he be the Home Secretary or, later on, some Minister specially appointed and charged with duties in relation to Civil Defence.
I would argue further, and submit this with all deference to the consideration of the Committee, that the balance of argument is in fact very strong on the side of having one designated Minister whom the House will hold generally responsible for Civil Defence matters, without derogation from the specific duties of any Minister who is charged by virtue of his position as Minister with functions which are relevant to Civil Defence, either by way of law and order, transport, food or health or whatever they may be; and the Home Secretary should be, as is contemplated in Clause 1, in a position to delegate to such Departmental Ministers Civil Defence functions which would thereby be added to the normal functions of the Departmental Minister.
The Home Secretary spoke of the importance of making a Minister fully responsible to this House for his actions in his own particular sphere. He seemed, I thought, to be implying that the Minister to whom functions are delegated under Clause 1 will not be so fully responsible to the House for the discharge of those functions as he would be if he were separately designated as the Minister under the definition Clause. Is that, I wonder, the correct view? I should have thought speaking subject to correction, that if, for example, under Clause 1 the Minister designated in the first instance delegated certain functions to a colleague, that colleague would thereby become responsible because he would be discharging those functions as a responsible Minister of the Crown. I submit that to the Committee with a good deal of confidence as the correct constitutional view; otherwise, I think a grave doubt will be thrown on the whole conception of delegation as it appears in Clause 1. Is the Minister to whom powers are delegated to become a mere creature of the designated Minister, a mere subordinate, and not a Minister responsible to this House? I think that the answer to that must be "No."

For these reasons, I ask the Home Secretary if he would look at this matter again. It is simply a question of getting the most effective "set-up," if I may use that expression. I see that the right hon. Gentleman might be under a slight disadvantage if he appeared to be aggrandising his own position by claiming to be the responsible Minister over the whole field, but I think that would be false modesty on his part, and I say that he should take courage and face the House, and adopt the suggestion which my right hon. Friend has made.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: I thought when I listened to the Home Secretary that his real sympathies were with the Amendment and not with the defence of the Clause as it stands. He said that he thought that the Amendment would be acceptable, and he thought, indeed, that it would be good if it applied to a period of emergency——

Mr. Ede: I said that it might be.

Mr. Hopkin Morris: —that it might be good if it applied to the emergency. The powers that are handed over under Clauses 2 and 6 of the Bill are as varied powers as would be necessary in an emergency. There would scarcely be any wider powers necessary. It is much more convenient, not only to this House, but for the purposes of administration, that there should be one Minister in control, even in the period of preparation. If the powers are handed over as in Clause 1, every Minister designated would be his own judge in the matter of preparation. There might be, if we had three, four, five or six Ministers responsible, five different standards of preparation for Civil Defence and no one Minister responsible for insuring that there was a uniform standard between the different Ministers. One Minister could do anything he chose, and there would be no one to say anything to him if he did nothing, except possibly by means of a Debate in this House. Therefore, it would be in the interest of Civil Defence itself and of the Government that there should be one Minister with overriding responsibility who could delegate his responsibility to other Ministers, but there should be one Minister responsible for a uniform standard of defence and one Minister responsible to this House.

Sir Stanley Holmes: If an important company in this country decided that it would open a new side of its business the board of directors would have to call upon a number of heads of departments in order to prepare the scheme—the engineering department, the transport department, the despatch department and many others. No board of directors in their senses would think of calling upon eight or nine heads of departments to prepare the scheme without making one of their senior executives responsible for the scheme as a whole. The senior executive put in charge would then be able to call upon all the others to do their share in preparing the scheme. If they did not do it he would be able to go to the chairman and managing director of the company and say, "This department is not pulling its weight in preparing the scheme; I want your help with regard to it." One man would be responsible, and in no other way would a business be able to prepare a proper scheme for a new venture like that.
Perhaps a business illustration is of no interest to the Government Front Bench, because I think I am right in saying that not one Minister, either senior or junior, has ever had any experience in active business management. However, I venture to say that just as our successful businesses would organise in the way I have suggested, by putting one man in charge of a scheme, so the Prime Minister in drawing up this scheme should have one Minister in charge, and the rest assisting him.

Mr. E. P. Smith: After listening very carefully to what the Home Secretary said, I must confess that I find it very difficult to see why he cannot accept this Amendment, even if the words "designated Minister" have their plural possibilities, as apparently they have under Clause 9 (2). I want, not to touch on that wider aspect, which has already been discussed, but for a moment to discuss the narrower aspect of the Amendment, which seeks to substitute the words "the duty" for "part of the functions." I should have thought that if a thing were part of the functions of a Minister, designated or not, it was also his duty, and I cannot see why the words "the duty" cannot be used in substitution for the rather unpleasant jargon "part of the functions." I submit it is

much better, simpler, clearer and more honest English. Take, for instance, the case of a Minister being guilty of a dereliction of duty. Are we, in future, to talk of his being guilty of a "dereliction of part of his functions"? I do plead with the Home Secretary, in the interests of clear and relatively concise English, to accept the Amendment on those grounds alone.

Mr. Burden: I am bound to say I feel that a good deal of this discussion is about words, and words only. I think that the Bill as it stands places fairly and squarely on the shoulders of a Minister the functions set forth in paragraphs (a) to (e). Obviously, one Minister must be, and will be under the terms of this Clause, responsible, but in the working out of the scheme he will have the assistance of other Ministers and other Departments. That flow from the words themselves. For example, we cannot expect the Minister to take on the whole of the detailed working out of provisions for dealing with the contamination of foodstuffs and the prevention of troubles arising from it.

Mr. Peake: I think the words in Subsection (2) of the definition Clause, Clause 9,
'the designated Minister' means … such Ministers acting jointly, as may be designated
must have escaped the attention of the hon. Member when he says that one Minister is bound under the Bill to enjoy primary responsibility.

Mr. Burden: I quite agree, but they act jointly to achieve the purpose, which is the primary responsibility of one Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Well, that seems to me the clear intention of the Clause. We want to get the best pattern in this Bill, and I suggest to hon. Members who press this Amendment that if an organisation of this kind is set up right at the top it must, of necessity, be carried right down; there cannot be varying types of organisation. When we get down to the operative bodies, the local authorities, and say that one Department must have everything under its own control, that is flying dead against all experience during the last war. I suggest that the Home Secretary has made an adequate defence of the present wording, which I hope will be accepted.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Cuthbert Headlam (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North): I cannot understand why the Home Secretary cannot accept this Amendment. Who will preside over this departmental committee? Who is the Minister? I cannot find anything in the Bill which makes it clear that any one man is responsible for the preparation of home defence. Who is the man who will be responsible to this House? I feel that it is all too vague. The Home Secretary spoke of the period of preparation, during which presumably the scheme must be got ready to deal with the emergency when it arises. In all probability the emergency will arise very quickly, and there may then be five Departments, each with its own little scheme, the local authorities and the police, with no one in charge of the proceedings at all. I cannot understand how such a scheme can possibly succeed.

Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden), that we want to get the best pattern. Where I disagree with him is in his contention that the words of this Bill do what he alleges they do. In support of my view, I remind the Committee of the words which the Home Secretary used during Second Reading:
It is intended that the Governmental responsibility for the new Civil Defence organisation shall be shared … by the Ministers whose peace-time functions are analagous."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1092.]
I admit that the Home Secretary has gone much further this afternoon. I could not take his words down exactly, but I think he said that the Home Secretary would be responsible for seeing that the team was working and that the whole ground was covered. If he really means that, surely he is saying that he agrees with the substance of our Amendment.
My next point is a verbal one, which also has some psychological significance. I draw attention to the difference between the words "functions" and "duties." I am not concerned with the dictionary meaning of those words, but I am concerned with the Clauses in the Bill. In dealing with the responsibilities of the central Government and of local authorities the word "functions" is used, but when we get down to the individual citizen who is expected to give services the word "duty" is used. I suggest that

if it is right that this Bill should call on invidual citizens to perform certain duties it is equally right that it should call on the Government and local authorities to perform duties and not merely functions.
Lastly, I wish to support my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) in his reference to the value of any orders which may be issued in future coming through one central Ministry. As the Home Secretary knows only too well, there is a real importance in co-ordination—however much he may dislike that word—and I believe that there would be practical advantages in having all the orders, whether prepared by other Ministries or not, "vetted" by one Minister before being put out in draft form.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: I had little intention of taking part in this Debate, but after listening to the speeches it seems to me that we are in danger of forgetting our experience during the war. During the war I was a member of an emergency committee, and it is my recollection that most of the functions of Civil Defence were primarily the responsibility of the Minister for Home Security. He was responsible for the organisation, the training and the setting up of the different services, and it was through him that the other Ministries came in. For example, the Ministry of Health was concerned with evacuation, as well as the Ministry of Education, in its early stages, and the Minister of Food was called upon in connection with emergency feeding schemes. Generally speaking, the organisation was through the local authorities. I do not think that we should depart from that experience, unless it can be shown that we can reasonably improve upon it, which certainly has not been proved in this Debate. The primary responsibility should be with the Home Office because they are responsible for so many of the Civil Defence services and will continue to be. I see no reason therefore for any change in the Bill.

General Sir George Jeffreys (Peters-field): I want also to say a word from the point of view of the emergency committees. I was the chairman of one of these committees during the war. I am


perfectly certain that the more independent Ministers are of one another in this matter of Civil Defence, the more independent will be their subordinates. From my experience—and here I differ from Members opposite—the representatives of the various Ministries at regional headquarters, with whom we had to deal, were not working in very close liaison with one another. They seemed unnecessarily to hold up proposals made by the emergency committees, which in many cases were very urgent, and caused delay and overlapping. There is very little between us and the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. The plea we make for the concentration of the chief responsibility in one Minister is a sound one, if only from the point of view of his subordinates, and I hope that the Home Secretary will think again about this matter.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to this Bill as being principally concerned with the preparatory stages. I submit that the preparatory stage will be a very important one. We do not want any unnecessary delays, but to go ahead making use of the experience of the last war and avoiding any of our previous mistakes. I submit that there was a good deal of unnecessary delay during the last war due to the dissipation of responsibility between the various Ministries, and that it would be very much better if this small Amendment in words, which is really an important one with regard to the functions of the designate Minister, could be accepted.

Mr. Sidney Marshall: As a result of my experience in Civil Defence during the last war, I hoped that in any future measure on Civil Defence one Minister would be responsible for the issuing of orders. Therefore, when I read this Bill the first thing that struck me as being most unfortunate was the fact that there was to be this divided responsibility. Although the Home Secretary is apparently to be the paramount Minister, he intends that some of his duties or functions shall be delegated. I cannot understand why it should be necessary to delegate any of the functions that were exercised under Civil Defence during the last war. I cannot understand why the local authorities, upon whom most of these duties will fall, should be required to divide

their attentions as between the various Ministers.
I am sure that the local authorities would be more than content to take all their orders from one Minister. I do not know whether the Home Secretary believes it to be essential that the other Ministers should also have their fingers in the pie. I agree that past experience is not always a pointer for the future, but I am perfectly certain—and I hope the Home Secretary will try to help the local authorities in this regard—that one Minister only should be responsible for the orders; otherwise the local authorities will simply be faced with difficulties and delays by having to go to this Minister or that Minister to do something which they have to do anyway. For my own experience in the last war, I am convinced that if there had been only one Minister to deal with, many vexatious delays could have been avoided.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: This matter of responsibility is obviously an important one. That is why we have to consider very carefully whether single or multiple responsibility is the better. The Committee naturally listens to the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) with great respect on a matter of this kind, but it does not seem unnatural that he should be very anxious to retain the supervisory and directing rights of the Ministry with which he was connected. There must be a test in this matter, and it cannot be the one that has been adumbrated by an hon. Member opposite when he gave the illustration of a company with a board of directors. He said that if the board had seven or eight departmental managers, who produced a scheme or schemes in connection with the company, the board would not leave that entirely in their hands, but would themselves take control in order to manipulate or operate these particular schemes.
That I can understand, but that is very far distant from the proposition that we are facing in this Bill. The company is a single entity and the board of directors constitute the authority which is responsible for the mangement of the company. It is not unnatural, therefore, that the source of action and of commercial operation comes within the purview of that particular entity, and that the board which represents it should also


direct it, should implement and operate such schemes as are proposed.
That is not the case here. What is being asked for here is that one Ministry, which ordinarily is completely detached from the functions and machinery of other Ministries, should take complete control for this purpose of the machinery and operation of all other Ministries. That seems to me to be a proposition which has got to be very carefully looked at and considered. I should have thought that in an elaborate matter of that kind, Civil Defence was essentially a Departmental matter. The right hon. and gallant Member for North Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Sir C. Headlam) said that it was very important because if there was an emergency there would not be much time to think about all this and put Civil Defence into operation. I should have thought that that was a strong reason for having a multiple responsibility rather than a single responsibility, because in that way you would have machinery which could be mobilised and operated effectively and at once in the different Departments.
If that is a good reason, it seems to me that the departmental nature of this scheme is much to be preferred to the other. It is perfectly clear that for practical reasons there is bound to be divided responsibility. One thing that has to be weighed in the matter of Civil Defence is to see that each particular, responsible sphere is so organised that when it is needed it can be put into effective operation in its own sphere at once, and it will lose much less time in action and implementation if it is done by the various departments rather than one. For those reasons, the matter being so elaborate and the Home Secretary in his own Department not being able to connect up with the other Ministries for this purpose, the provision in the Bill is the one that should be adopted.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Ede: We have had a very good discussion on this Amendment, and in practice there is not very much between us. Much of the quarrel is about words. Of course, in an Act of Parliament words are very important things and I am not, therefore, belittling them, but I think the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. S. Marshall) showed up the logic of the

words proposed in the Amendment. He asked why there should be delegation and why Ministers other than one supreme Minister should have a finger in the pie. That was a figure of speech—I would not like it to be thought that sitting round a pie was anything like my recollection of what attending the "tank" was like during the last war.
I suggest to the Committee that I have made it quite clear who is to be the presiding Minister, and that answers the query on that subject by the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). In this matter the Home Secretary is the presiding Minister in the sense that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. He is responsible for seeing that the other Ministers are preparing their part of the Civil Defence framework. In answer to the hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris), who asked me what would happen if one Minister did nothing, I would say that in such a situation quite clearly it would be the duty of the Home Secretary to see that he started moving and did the appropriate thing. The Minister cannot merely say, "Something must be done, and therefore I will do the first thing that comes into my head."

Mr. Hopkin Morris: Why not put that into the Bill?

Mr. Ede: The provision for that is in the set-up I described. The arrangements for carrying out the work of the Defence Committee for the whole country are not to be found in any Bill. Certain Ministers of the Crown responsible for the Fighting Services are charged with certain functions, and in order that those functions may be properly brought together and the requisite amount of men and material found, the Defence Committee functions under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities will correct me if I am wrong, but that is not laid down in any Act of Parliament. It is part of the machinery of Government that has been devised to deal with defence. It is probably better that it is not in an Act of Parliament, because it is flexible enough to be adapted to the needs of the Constitution.

Sir J. Anderson: I agree that in our flexible Constitution it is very often


found that the relationships are not too closely defined, but the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Minister of Defence, his functions and the functions of the Defence Committee. The Minister of Defence has a definite status under the Constitution and he has defined functions. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has so far addressed himself to the criticism which we made, that the Bill, in the definition Clauses, puts a number of Ministers on a footing of exact equality as designated Ministers. That seems to us to run counter to the conception—a fear shared by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—which is to have one presiding Minister.

Mr. Ede: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will agree, because he picked it up from my preliminary speech, that I made it clear that, as far as the machinery of Government goes, the Home Secretary will be the presiding Minister and that a general responsibility for the efficiency of the arrangements will fall on him. If he should have an inefficient colleague who does not get his part of the preparations appropriately ready and does not take steps to bring that colleague up to scratch, he will have to accept his responsibility for that colleague's failure. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now acquit me of any failing of modesty in describing the exact position of the Home Secretary.
When we consider the other Ministers, we must remember that the right hon. Gentleman himself was responsible for the Act of 1939. The opening words of Section 50 of that Act are:
It shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, part of the functions of the Minister of Health (in this part of this Act referred to as "the Minister") to make arrangements—(a) to secure that, in the event of war, the facilities will be available for treatment in hospital. … (b) for the training in advance, in nursing. … (c) for the provision of a bacteriological service. …
It will be seen that the words we have put into this Clause are in fact the words of the Act of 1939. The words which this Amendment proposes to move out of the Bill were in the Act of 1939. Surely it is right that, where we have functions that in peace time are exercised by a certain Minister, and in time of war functions either analogous to those or in extension of those will be

required, that is the appropriate Ministry which should be charged with the task of preparing the details of the way in which those functions are then to be discharged. I gather that on the substance of the matter there is nothing between us. That is so obvious that it can be accepted.
The question now arises whether we shall say in the Bill that there is to be one Minister who is to be responsible and who is to assume all these functions to himself covering seven or eight Ministries, as the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said. It might be even more. The Postmaster-General comes in for the maintenance of communications, the Minister of Fuel and Power comes in, in addition to the Ministers previously mentioned; and one Minister is to take to himself all these functions and then delegate them again to the people from whom he has assumed them. As a piece of theoretical machinery of Government that may be quite possible, but I suggest that as an administrative arrangement it is simply chaos. The logic of the whole matter was put forward by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, that there ought to be this one Minister who, for Civil Defence and nothing else, takes over these functions and then runs them in isolation from the Departments which have previously been charged with them. I am sure that that logical working out of the matter will not be accepted by anyone. I do not say that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench suggested it, but it was the logic of the argument by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam.
In the Bill we have a practical and reasonable arrangement. If, to deal with the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys), officers who will be concerned in the regions and elsewhere came under the control of the single designated Minister and no one else, they would still have to refer back to the Departments with which they were normally connected.

Sir G. Jeffreys: The right hon. Gentleman has not said what I suggested. What I suggested was that if the Ministers were absolutely independent of one another, their subordinates were also independent and what was needed, as I said in my Second Reading speech, was—although


the right hon. Gentleman does not like the word—co-ordination from above, from one Minister. That is wanted in order to secure the proper working together of them all.

Mr. Ede: If that is anything at all, it is a criticism of the way in which the work was done in the last war and I am sure the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities would not agree that Ministers were allowed to function independently when it came to matters of Civil Defence. I saw several of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite from time to time sitting with myself under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities. It would be a travesty of the facts to suggest that each of our Departments was acting independently. Great efforts were made to ensure that the work should be brought into proper relationship with one Department and another. I suggest that the arrangement the Government have made is reasonable, that the general responsibility is firmly fixed on the Home Secretary, that he is responsible for seeing that each of the Departments prepares its plans and that each of the Departments in its own particular functions can best deal with the problems of getting the various services available for Civil Defence. If we had one super-Minister, I think the Committee would find he would still have to rely on the same Departments to do the work.

Mr. S. Marshall: But not on the local authorities.

Mr. Ede: In Clause 1 we are dealing with the question at Ministerial level and we shall only confuse ourselves if at this stage we start talking about what will happen at the local authority level. Hon. Members may rest assured that if it becomes necessary for local authorities to communicate with one Minister or more, each particular service will have to be dealt with by an expert who has been trained in the Department concerned. I suggest that, on the substance of the matter there is nothing between the two sides of the Committee. When it comes to words, we have taken words which were in the Act of 1939, and I do not think that, in view of what has been said on the substance of the matter, it would in any way strengthen the Clause if this Amendment were accepted.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I had some experience of this problem for some years, and only in virtue of that do I venture to address the Committee this afternoon. I was Minister of Health and previously Secretary of State for Scotland when we were working on this problem. I remember very well the improvement in the organisation which took place as my right hon. Friend the Member for Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) was designated, as the Home Secretary said, as a super-Minister. I remember well this position of a constellation of Ministers——

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman says "designated as a super-Minister." Is not that untrue? I remember inaugurating a two days' Debate when I tried to introduce the position of a super-Minister, and every answer used by the Home Secretary tonight was used by Mr. Mabane, the Under-Secretary, and by other members of the Government to the effect that it should be left in the hands of a Minister designate who would have general control over the Departments. I only mention that as a matter of history.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I am not unacquainted with the history of the matter either. My hon. Friend the Member for the Combined English Universities (Mr. K. Lindsay) was a colleague of mine at the time. I am sure he will remember the clarity which began to come into our affairs as the responsibility was given more and more to one Minister. The point which the Home Secretary is apparently arguing is that the difficulty of the Departments would be increased if we made the change which is here sought. The argument which I am advancing to the Committee is that the difficulty of the Ministers would be diminished. I rest that argument upon the fact that I was such a Minister, and my difficulties at the earlier stages were greater than my difficulties at the later stages—and more particularly of course, with the formation of the War Cabinet, when somebody has to represent a group of Ministers in that War Cabinet.
The Home Secretary himself cannot avoid the very language which we use in the Amendment when he seeks to explain the position to this Committee.


I took down his words. He said that if the Minister was not performing his work satisfactorily it would be "the duty of the Home Secretary to see that the appropriate measures were taken." Those are his words. If this is so, why not make the matter explicit in the statute—because that is what will happen? The administrative position will be as I think has been described on all sides of the Committee in very much the same language. All we say is that the words of the statute should correspond with the administrative position, and the administrative position will be, as the Home Secretary said, that it will be the duty of the Home Secretary, or whoever is chosen as the Minister, to see that these various functions are being appropriately performed.
I do not think that a group of Ministers could have a power of delegation. I do not think that we could have a designated group of Ministers who would then proceed to these difficult administrative arrangements because, as has been said on this side of the Committee and I think on the other side as well, the real danger is not at the top where arrangements are pretty simple and easy. The danger arises as we work down the chain where people tend to stand apart from each other. We have had this situation in a number of cases. I remember the particular position of the ambulance groups, for instance, which fell between the Minister of Health and the Home Secretary. Until we had a clear picture of where the responsibility lay, the difficulty of making the two sets of people co-operate was much greater.
There is an enormous number of independent Ministers and independent offices. The Home Secretary's office is a great and historic office. The office of the Minister of Health is great and historic, and it is sometimes held by very stubborn and independent personalities—perhaps even in the present administration. If

Parliament says that it is the duty of the Home Secretary, he can appeal to the statute, and I think it is much better that he should be able to appeal to it than that these arrangements should have to be made as he has subsequently described.

I remember very well the words:
It shall be, and shall be deemed always to have been, part of the functions of the Minister of Health.
I remember why those words were inserted. They were put in because the Minister of Health was not previously the Minister with direct functional responsibilities. He was endowed with those by the statute. It was necessary to endow him with those functions by the statute; otherwise he would not have performed them.

I think it is a pity, however, that we should delay upon this matter. I had hoped that we might make rapid progress with this Bill. It is not a party matter of any kind. In the discussion which we have had, I think there has been support for various views on either side, and I hope that we shall make rapid progress with this Bill. I am afraid, however, that on this Amendment we shall need to register our opinion by dividing, and we shall reserve our power to divide against the definition Clause as well. We do so not in any party sense, and I hope we shall be able to proceed rapidly with the other stages of the Bill, but we do say that the word "duty," which the Home Secretary has used in his own definition this evening, should be the word which Parliament uses for defining its position when other people come to read the Measure later on.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 245; Noes, 135.

Division No. 21.]
AYES
[5.7 p.m


Acland, Sir Richard
Battley, J. R
Brooks, T, J. (Rothwell)


Albu, A. H.
Bechervaise, A. E
Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Benson, G.
Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.


Alpass, J. H.
Beswick, F.
Burden, T, W.


Attewell, H. C.
Binns, J
Burke, W. A.


Austin, H. Lewis
Blackburn, A. R.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)


Awbery, S. S.
Blyton, W R.
Carmichael, James


Ayles, W. H.
Bottomley, A. G
Castle, Mrs. B A.


Bacon, Miss A
Bowden, Fig. Offr, H. W.
Chamberlain, R. A


Balfour, A
Braddock, Mrs. E M (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Chetwynd, G. R


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J
Bramall, E. A.
Cluse, W. S.


Barton, C
Brook, D. (Halifax)
Coldrick, W.




Collick, P.
Janner, B.
Proctor, W. T


Collindridge, F.
Jeger, G (Winchester)
Randall, H. E.


Collins, V. J.
Jeger, Dr S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Ranger, J.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Jenkins, R, H.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Cook, T. F.
Johnston, Douglas
Richards, R.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Jones, Rt Hon A. C. (Shipley)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Cove, W. G
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Keenan, W
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)


Daggar, G.
Kenyon, C
Royle, C


Daines, P.
King, E. M.
Scollan, T.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kinley, J
Scott-Elliott, W


Davies, R J. (Westhoughton)
Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.
Segal, Dr. S.


Davies, S. O (Merthyr)
Lang, G.
Shackleton, E. A A.


Deer, G.
Lavers, S
Sharp, Granville


Delargy, H. J
Lee, F (Hulme)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Dodds, N. N.
Lee, Miss J (Cannock)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Leslie, J. R.
Simmons, C J.


Dugdale, J. (W Bromwich)
Levy, B. W.
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C


Dumpleton, C. W
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Skinnard, F. W


Dye, S.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Ede, Rt Hon. J. C
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Edelman, M.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Smith, H N. (Nottingham, S.)


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Logan, D. G
Snow, J. W


Edwards, W J (Whitechapel)
Longden, F.
Solley, L. J.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Lyne, A W.
Stross, Dr. B.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McAdam, W
Stubbs, A. E


Evans, John (Ogmore)
McEntee, V. La T
Summerskill, Dr Edith


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
McGhee, H. G
Swingler, S.


Ewart, R.
Mack, J. D.
Sylvester, G O


Farthing, W. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Symonds, A. L


Fernyhough, E
McLeavy, F
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Field, Capt. W. J
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Follick, M.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, D E (Aberdare)


Forman, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thurtle, Ernest


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mann, Mrs. J
Tiffany, S


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Timmons, J


Gibbins, J
Marshall, F (Brightside)
Titterington, M F.


Gilzean, A
Mellish, R. J.
Tolley, L.


Glanville, J E. (Consett)
Middleton, Mrs. L.
Turner-Samuels, M


Grenfell, D. R.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Grey, C. F.
Mitchison, G. R
Vernon, Maj W. F


Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)
Monslow, W.
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, Rt Hon. J (Llanelly)
Morley, R.
Walker, G. H.


Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)


Guest, Dr L. Haden
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Wallace, H W (Walthamstow, E)


Gunter, R. J.
Mort, D. L.
Watson, W M


Haire, John E (Wycombe)
Moyle, A.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Hale, Leslie
Murray, J. D
West, D G


Hall, Rt Hon. Glenvil
Nally, W
Wheatley, Rt Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Naylor, T. E
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hannan, W (Maryhill)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Hardy, E. A
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Wigg, George


Harrison, J.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wilkins, W. A


Hastings, Dr Somerville
Noel-Baker, Capt F E. (Brentford)
Williams, D J (Neath)


Haworth, J.
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Oliver, G H.
Williams, R. W (Wigan)


Hobson, C. R
Orbach, M.
Williams, W R. (Heston)


Holman, P
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wontworth)
Willis, E.


Holmes, H E. (Hemsworth)
Palmer, A. M. F
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Hoy, J.
Parker, J.
Wise, Major F J


Hubbard, T.
Parkin, B. T.
Woods, G. S


Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Paton, Mrs F (Rushcliffe)
Wyatt, W.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)
Paton, J (Norwich)
Yates, V. F


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Perrins, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Popplewell, E
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Hynd, H (Hackney, C)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Zilliacus, K


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Porter, G (Leeds)



Irvine, A J. (Liverpool)
Price, M. Philips
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Mr. Pearson and Mr. Richard Adams




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr P. G
Bower, N.
Clarke, Col. R. S


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot Univ.)
Boyd-Carpenter, J A.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G


Baldwin, A E.
Bracken, Rt Hon. Brendan
Conant, Maj R. J. E


Barlow Sir J
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J G
Cooper-Key, E. M


Baxter, A. B
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)


Beamish, Maj T. V. H
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E


Beechman, N A.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Crowder, Capt. John E


Birch, Nigel
Butcher, H. W.
Cuthbert, W. N


Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells)
Byers, Frank
Davidson, Viscountess


Boothby, R
Carson, E
Davies, Rt Hn. Clement (Montgomery)


Bowen, R
Challen, C
De la Bère, R.







Digby, S. W.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)
Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)


Drayson, G B.
Lipson. D. L.
Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)


Drewe, C.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Ropner, Col. L.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Low, A. R. W.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Savory, Prof. D. L


Eccles, D. M.
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.
Scott, Lord W.


Elliot, Lieut.-Col- Rt. Hon. Walter
McCallum, Maj. D.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Erroll, F. J.
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)
Maclean, F H. R. (Lancaster)
Smithers, Sir W.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Gates, Maj. E. E.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey.)
Marsden, Capt. A.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Studholme, H G.


Gridley, Sir A.
Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Grimston, R. V.
Mellor, Sir J.
Teeling, William


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.


Head, Brig. A. H.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
Touche, G. C.


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholson, G.
Vane, W. M. F.


Hollis, M. C.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Wakefield, Sir W. W


Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Nutting, Anthony
Ward, Hon. G. R


Hops, Lord J.
Odey, G. W.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Howard, Hon. A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Hurd, A.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
White, J. B (Canterbury)


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Jennings, R.
Poole, O. B. S (Oswestry)
York, C.


Keeling, E. H.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Kendall, W. D.
Prior-Palmer, Brig, O.



Law, Rt. Hon. R. K
Raikes, H. V.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Brigadier Mackeson and




Colonel Wheatley.


Question put, and agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out from the first word "for," to "any," in line 11.
I hope we shall not be long on this Amendment. I met my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) in the Lobby a few minutes ago, and when I asked him what he was doing he said, "I am going out to take steps for the purpose of effecting, or for facilitating the subsequent effecting, of having a cup of tea." I thought my right hon. Friend had taken leave of his senses until I realised that he had been reading the Bill. I suggest that the words
… effecting, or for facilitating the subsequent effecting…
are quite unnecessary. The designated Minister is to take such steps as appear to him from time to time to be necessary or expedient for Civil Defence purposes, and, in particular, such steps as appear to him to be necessary or expedient for the purposes set out in paragraphs (a) to (e). I cannot see that the purpose of the Bill is strengthened by the inclusion of the words I have just quoted, all the more so because in the succeeding Clause it seems as though the draftsman has been so bored with them that he could not even remember the words he had used. They are:

… for the effecting, or the facilitating of the subsequent effecting. …
There are one or two other examples of bad draftsmanship in this Bill. The word "may," for instance, occurs in the main Clause and in many other places, but this is a matter which I think we can clean up without too much trouble, as I hope the Home Secretary will agree.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Ede: On his own contention the right hon. and gallant Gentleman has only just considered this matter since it appears that he was talking about it in the Lobby to his right hon. Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson).

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No, I have given a great deal of thought to it, as indeed would anyone who takes the pride of writing the English language, as I have a modest habit of doing. I merely put it forward as an example of something which anyone would have been horrified to hear from a friend.

Mr. Ede: It was astonishing that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not recollect the words his right hon. Friend used until he again looked at the Bill, and was surprised to find them in it. I am sorry that I cannot accept the Amend-


ment, because the words make an appreciable contribution to the effectiveness of the Clause. There are Civil Defence measures which it would not be practicable to put into operation now, or for some time to come, but in respect of which it would be most desirable to take such preliminary and preparatory steps as are possible, and as might be calculated to produce a situation which would make the attainment of the ultimate end easier and more expeditious. There is, for instance, the question of the provision of local mobile columns. It is highly desirable to take preliminary steps to provide for such columns, so that when the appropriate time comes the calling of them into being would have been facilitated and the general efficiency of the scheme improved.
The Clause is designed to permit the Minister to take, where appropriate, preliminary and preparatory steps for the ultimate achievement of the objects set out in the Clause. Those steps might possibly involve the spending of money now. It is for the purpose of making it clear that these preliminary steps, for which there may be no great show of ground at the present moment, are permissible, that it is necessary to retain these words in the Clause.

Mr. Charles Williams: I do not think it is necessary to have these pedantic words in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman has said that he wants to be able to take certain preliminary steps which might be necessary. I would not for the world try to prevent him, but I think that, like many of his colleagues, he is rather a person who needs to be agitated into doing things, especially when it comes to matters of defence. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that without these words it will be impossible for him to carry on with those small matters which might be necessary? I cannot think so. The wording of the Clause is already very full and so wide that it seems to me, although I am not a lawyer, that no practical necessity for the other words have been put forward. I notice that we are without a lawyer on the Front Bench opposite to explain the legal necessity of these words.
I suggest that the real reason the right hon. Gentleman likes to keep them is

because they are rather pedantic and schoolmastery. They sound very nice but are ineffective in any way. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear hear."] I have support from the Socialist Benches. I beg the Patronage Secretary to notice that I have split his party at one go by my commonsense remarks. I see opposite me an hon. Gentleman who is what I may call a sea lawyer. They are not very respectable people. They are likely to get up and make long arguments, but I am sure the hon. Member for the Park Division of Sheffield (Mr. Burden) will support me. He is not one of those who like schoolmastery long words and phrases just for the sake of putting them in. The words we are trying to eliminate are terrible. They are not good English and it is a shame that they should be inflicted upon Scottish Members as well. I hope that the Home Secretary will do something about it.
We are all trying to be peaceful and good-natured. It will be better if the Home Secretary withdraws his opposition to the Amendment and lets us have it. It is a good plan for the Government to propitiate the Opposition early in the discussion of a Bill. There is nothing like giving the Opposition an Amendment. That is why it would be an excellent idea to give my right hon. and gallant Friend the Amendment he moved, in the hope that then he will be willing to go on at full speed with the other Amendments. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I expect, with the obviously growing support that the Conservative Party will have on this matter from the Benches opposite, that the Home Secretary will not let that support go too far. It will be better for him to give way at once.

Mr. Burden: I must support the Home Secretary with regard to the necessity of these words. While I agree that it might be profitable for us all to study diligently that well-known publication "Plain Words," by an eminent civil servant, I cannot help thinking that a Bill drafted by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) would be something to delight the Parliamentary draftsmen and other people. Sometimes I think of the hon. Gentleman in terms of the phrase which was used in another connection and upon another occasion, as being "intoxicated with the exuberance of his own streptomycin.
As to the purpose of the few words which it is proposed by the Amendment to leave out, one understands that a tremendous amount of preliminary work must be done in the drafting of Bills which afterwards will have to be construed in courts of law and it is very necessary indeed that precise language should be used in them. As I read the Clause, having listened to the Home Secretary's explanation, I see exactly why the words are put in. They are to cover preliminary arrangements, and not the actual carrying out now of definite steps in regard to certain matters. I am only underlining what the Home Secretary himself has said. I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: If a lawyer had convinced me that these words were necessary, I should not have got up now, but I have not been able to find such a lawyer. Surely measures taken for a purpose or for facilitating the subsequent effecting of that purpose must be taken for that purpose itself. Therefore, the preliminary words must be redundant. I am only a humble soldier, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if I wrote an operation order with a remote resemblance to the words in this Clause, knowing that it would have to be read by the light of a small torch, I should not have been long in the position that I have held for a long time. Never have I seen wording such as this Clause 2. I had to read it five times to get any inkling of its meaning. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to raise a laugh next time he is on a platform, let him just read out these words and see what reaction he will get.

Mr. Ede: First, I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that we are dealing with Clause 1 and not with Clause 2. Then I repeat that it is necessary for the reasons which I gave earlier to have these words in the Bill in order that necessary preparatory work can be done. I hope that the Committee will now agree to dispose of the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: We do our best to get on. Certainly I do not intend to divide the Committee on this Amendment, but when the Home Secretary picks up a trivial point such as the fact that we are discussing Clause 1 and not Clause 2, I must point out that the same

words appear in Clause 2. Trying to facilitate discussion, we mentioned the two together, but if the right hon. Gentleman wants to have the whole discussion over again upon Clause 2, he can have it. Does he think that this is a way to get on? Really, the right hon. Gentleman is being unnecessarily hedgehoggish this afternoon. Let him unroll himself and allow his prickles to subside. Do not let him direct all his spines to preserving himself diligently against any attempt to assist.
5.30 p.m.
I noticed with some sorrow that the Home Secretary had repeatedly to refresh his memory as to the case for this by looking down at his brief and reading some of the most awful "officialese" that the House has ever heard. It was worthy of the hand of the draftsman who inserted those words. Every now and then came the tell-tale flick of the eyelids to which we are so accustomed in amateurs when they are trying to stand up to the test for a screen player. The Secretary of State is defending the indefensible here, if he wants it all over again on Clause 2——

Mr. Scollan: Divide the Committee.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No, I will not. I want to get ahead with the Bill and, believe me, the Home Secretary does not want to divide the Committee. It is all very well for Scottish Members who have nowhere else to go on a cold foggy night, but there are a lot of English Members here with homes to go to, whose wives will be glad to see them. We want to give them an opportunity of that, we whose homes are far away in the Northern Kingdom. Let us have pity on our brothers. We do not intend to divide, but the Home Secretary might be more forthcoming in a Bill which, admittedly, must be the product of all parties and must be operated by all parties when it gets on to the Statute Book.

Mr. C. Williams: Surely, after that plea the Home Secretary will give way. After all, he has been let down terribly by one of his back benchers just now in a speech which was shocking in its lack of knowledge of what ought to be in a Bill. The Home Secretary was obviously flagging in his interest in this Amendment to a point when I thought


he would give way. Then he turned on my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer) in rather a nasty way when my hon. and gallant Friend was only trying to help him. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to like these exaggerated and unnecessary phrases in a Bill, but we like easier things, so that the local authorities can know what to do. It is a shocking thing for the Home Secretary to take the obstinate point of view that he has taken on a matter about which he knows as well as I do, that he is absolutely wrong.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. Williams: I have only taken part in the proceedings on this Clause during the last discussion. I protest against it now because, instead of making the position absolutely clear so that the country, and especially the local authorities, can know that there is one supreme authority, it means that there is nominally a supreme authority but there is not one clearly designated authority with power and control over the other Ministers. Subsection (2) says:
The designated Minister may make arrangements whereby any of his functions under this section are, to such an extent as may be provided by the arrangements, exercised on his behalf by another Minister.
A designated Minister may be any of several. He may be the right hon. Gentleman himself, or he may pass it on to someone else. In other words, there was in this Clause a chance of having a really clear-cut simple bit of legislation, but the Minister seems deliberately to have made this Clause, while not quite as bad as the London fog, very nearly as bad.

Major Legge-Bourke: In listening to the discussion that took place on the first Amendment, I was a little disturbed at the thought that we were looking at this purely in the light of the last war. There is no more difficult problem for any Minister who is responsible for Civil Defence to overcome than the fact that in the event of a war occurring, he must bring from peace-time tempo into war-time tempo, the whole of the Government departmental machine.
The right hon. Gentleman has paid considerable attention to what has been said by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) and it is obvious that we should pay attention to the voice of experience in these matters. However, we must also bear in mind the fact that we can take it as almost certain that in the event of another war, that war will not be at all the same as the last one. We have also to admit the unpleasant fact that war inevitably creates dictators, even in democracies. Obviously, therefore, we have a good reason for not wanting a war. Nevertheless, in the event of war occurring, whether we like it or not, it is most important that the methods with which we fight it from a Civil Defence point of view are the best methods, and those most likely to achieve the best results in the shortest time.
I believe there is a chance that by basing Subsection (2) mainly on past experience, we are running a grave risk of building up a Civil Defence machine which will not be quick enough or active enough to deal with the situation when it arises. I assure the right hon. Gentleman—and I hope he will believe me when I say it—that I have the greatest respect for him, and I do not doubt his sincerity, but I doubt his judgment on this matter. I believe that the best way of fighting a war is to have as leaders men who have studied what is likely to be the condition of that war rather than men who have only experience of the past. I am quite certain that whoever the designated Minister may be, he must be a young and active man, capable of taking rapid decisions. I am certain that if there were occasions in the last war, as some of my hon. and right hon. Friends have said, when there was a slow-motion effect due to the number of Ministeries concerned, that has to be overcome before another war starts.
In the machinery that we have, it is imperative that there are no obstacles such as were experienced in the last war. If there are, the effect of those obstacles will be far worse in the next war than in the last. Therefore, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will try to see whether, on the Third Reading or in another place, he can suggest something else being inserted in the Bill which will overcome these grave dangers. I am quite certain that if we look at this in the light of


the last war, we shall be making a mistake for which England will never forgive us.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I think that the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) has brought a little reality into the Debate. There has been far too much discussion of administrative machinery instead of the realities behind the Bill. The argument underlying the Clause is that we must be prepared for the defence of the civil population in the event of another war. In all the expositions from the Home Secretary, I have heard no satisfactory explanation of how the Minister designate will act should any one of our great cities require to be defended against attack by an atomic bomb. We are merely playing with the subject. We are assuming that the whole machinery of the last war will be operated in a war which will be fought out by modern explosives and atomic bombs.
I was recently discussing defence in atomic warfare with some atom scientists in America. I listened closely to the discussions between two of those scientists, who talked about atomic energy being used not in bombs, but in rockets. They were seriously talking about defending the cities of America against rockets driven by atomic energy. I said, "Surely things have not advanced like that in the realm of atomic discovery," but they replied, "Yes." One of these atom scientists, a well-known figure in American research, said they were now discussing seriously the possibilities of a rocket driven by atomic energy which would reach any part of the world in eight minutes. A few years ago, before the last war, we did not think in terms of rockets. The last few months of the war, however, brought us into the realm of reality as far as rockets were concerned. There is every reason to believe that high explosives may be used in an atomic weapon propelled by rocket.
I have listened very carefully to the Debate. What the Minister and his critics, and his supporters on this side, are talking about is a war fought in the days when bombs were simply dropped from aeroplanes. I fail to see in the Clause any sense of security at all. The only way we shall get security in the event of an atomic war, will be by our not having the materials to do ourselves

the things against which we are asked to protect ourselves and other people. What I mean is that if we are attacked, if Civil Defence proposals are necessary at all, it will be because some foreign Power thinks it is its duty to drop high explosives or atomic bombs, or to use some other devilish instrument, because we are making atomic bombs here ourselves. I assert, therefore, that the only possible defence against atomic warfare is for this country to discard these devilish weapons and set a lead to the world. I believe that a real sense of security will come only when we have no arsenals which the enemy thinks it is necessary to destroy.
There is one explanation which I should like to have from the Home Secretary. Subsection (1, d) refers to
the provision, storage and maintenance of commodities and things required for civil defence.
May we have a definition of what this means? A few days ago the Minister of Supply, when questioned in the House, explained the need for 250 monkeys for research purposes. Are these unfortunate monkeys being brought to this country under the proposals of this Bill? Are we to be asked to provide money for research of this kind? The Clause tells us of:
…commodities and things required for civil defence.
It was explained that these unfortunate animals, which have had no say at all in the affairs of men, are to be brought here for some kind of bacteriological or other experiments in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. That may seem a very funny thing to the Home Secretary, but I am not so sure that it is a laughing matter. If the people who are keen about Civil Defence want to carry out research into bacteriology and the effects of radio-activity on these animals, if the patriotic people who are so keen about fighting these wars are prepared to fight wars against Marxist-Leninism, let them volunteer themselves instead of bringing unfortunate monkeys from another part of the world. If ever there was a descent of man, surely this is it.
I see from the provisions of the Clause that we shall be organising and spending money on devilish researches of this kind. I suggest that the whole of the thought


behind this Bill is in terms of the last war. It gets nowhere near reality as far as the next war is concerned. Once again we are asked to rehearse for something which we hope will never come off but which, when it does come off, will not be like the rehearsal.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Keenan: I did not intend to speak again on the Clause but after listening to what was said by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), I think a few observations are necessary. I am no warmonger, any more than is the hon. Member, but I remember that before the war started in 1938 quite a lot of irresponsible people said precisely the things which he has just said. If the community had not been persuaded to make the necessary arrangements and to organise the protection which we did at that time, he and I, and probably a few others, might not be here for the discussion today.
It is regrettable that in 1948 there should be any need to make preparations of this kind. Anybody in the House who tries to assert that this country is responsible for this position is not acting fairly to the country. The Government, and even hon. Members opposed to it, are not at all anxious for war. We have done all that is humanly possible to avoid it, but it does not seem at all likely that we shall succeed. I want to be quite frank. As I see the picture, the dangers are there. It would be criminal for any of us to neglect taking whatever precautions we can to protect our people. We had to do so before and it was a good job that we did. I remember quite well that in 1938 our people skitted at the services then being organised; practices were prepared in parks and other places and imaginary raids took place. It was a jolly good job for the community, however, that those things were done.
I was a member of the committee of a town in the North—Liverpool—that was bombed. The best docks in the country had to be protected, and we got all that we expected; but if the Civil Defence services had not been arranged for us before the war started and developed during the war period, we should have been in a much worse position than we were subsequently. It would be criminal folly to take notice of anybody who

says we should not prepare. Even though we may spend very large sums of money—we may have to spend millions—before such hostilities take place, we may not be in a position to defend ourselves against atomic bombs or bacteriological warfare; but we certainly shall be in a better position if we are prepared to do something and we can develop, as we had to develop during the last war.
We did not know we should have to face rockets and the rest. We did not know the extent and nature of some of the bombs that were subsequently used; we did not know they were going to be so heavy; we had had no experience of that before. But if I may say so, it was a good job that in the country there were people public-spirited enough and sufficiently interested in the rest of the community to make preparations to avoid something for which they were not responsible.
Today, nobody can accuse anyone in the House of Commons, or the millions of people outside it, of being responsible for the international situation which we must all deplore. But it would be tragic if we did not face up to it. I hope that, whatever else is done, we shall use every effort and spend as much as we can in preparing to resist the attacks which we expect. To say that we are wasting our time because we do not know sufficiently what future warfare may be, that our arrangements for Civil Defence will not be as up-to-date as they might be and that we may not be anticipating what will come along to the extent which is necessary, is all very well, but that was the position before. It is criminal for anyone to try to discourage this effort to protect the people.

Mr. Howard: Two matters arise out of Subsection 1 (a and e) which are of considerable urgency. Perhaps the Home Secretary will make some statement on them, not today but on the Report stage. The matter which arises out of paragraph (a) is the organisation of Civil Defence forces and services. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in the Second Reading Debate the memorandum sent out by his Department just over a year ago, was subjected to a great deal of criticism about the nature of the forces and who should control them. I appreciate that there will be no formation


of those forces until the necessary training arrangements have been set out, and I strongly support that order of procedure, but it is very desirable that certain feelings, I will not say of alarm and of despondency, but of disquietude, among those who have interested themselves in keeping the Civil Defence idea alive during the last three difficult years, should be set at rest at as early a date as possible. They are unanimously of opinion that a somewhat different set-up from that envisaged in the memorandum should be decided upon. If the Home Secretary will look into that and make a statement on the Report stage, he will reap a great deal of benefit in his subsequent labours.
The second point arises out of paragraph (e), which is concerned with the provision, construction, maintenance or alteration of premises. It is quite clear that if the provision and alteration of premises is going on the whole time—the point has been made in the course of several Defence Debates—as soon as possible some general guidance should be issued whether any particular preparations or adaptations for Civil Defence purposes should be made in new buildings which are erected. As far as I know, no instructions of that sort have yet been issued. It may be that the research which is necessary before formulating decisions is not yet complete, but I am sure the Home Secretary will agree that this is a matter of real urgency if a great deal of money and labour is not to be wasted. I urge him to try to make a statement on these two matters on the Report stage.

Mr. Ede: I can assure the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke) that we are fully aware of the danger of trying to win the next war on the basis of the last. I suppose there was a time in the history of our country when we gave up using bows and arrows, but I am certain that for a long time Quartermasters-General contended that as they had been useful at the battles of Hastings and Crécy we should be very ill-advised not to have some in the armoury. The Joint Planning Staff are engaged in looking forward and trying, as far as they can to pierce the mists of the future, to ascertain what are the most advantageous ways in which Civil Defence can be developed and organised. All the Departments con-

cerned with Civil Defence are, of course, engaged on the same task. I can assure the hon. and gallant Member that his words only reinforce what we have been trying to do.
It is quite impossible to insert in the Bill any words which give effect to that underlying principle. If he can think of some between now and the Report stage, I would not decline to look at them, but I suggest that it would be a bit difficult. I do not want to claim more for the last Civil Defence organisation with which I was connected, both as a member of the emergency committee of a local authority and as a member of the Civil Defence Sub-Committee of the Government, than that from time to time, we looked forward and that some of the worst things were averted by the measures we were able to take. I have no doubt that at some time in the future when the secrets of all hearts are revealed and the archives are published, if we are here to read them many of us will be surprised at the way in which things were prepared for, although it was not apparent at the time that it was being done.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) was pretty effectively answered by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan). We should be failing in our duty as a Government, and the House would be failing in its responsibility to the country as a whole, if we did not take stock and prepare as far as we can for any difficulties that may arise. My hon. Friend asks me what is meant by a few words in paragraph (d). Clearly it is our duty to get together medical stores to deal with casualties and bridging and highways materials in order to make certain that if we fear that a certain important bridge may be destroyed, appropriate material of the right lengths and strength shall be available to form a bridge which will carry the traffic of the destroyed bridge. It is also our duty to attempt to discover in what way we may meet other forms of attack not previously met but which we fear may be employed in a future war. I can assure the Committee that we shall endeavour to do the best we can in that matter.
With regard to the first of the points mentioned by the hon. Member for St. George's (Mr. Howard), we shall


discuss that point with the local authorities in drafting the regulations. His second point is more clearly covered by Clause 6, and I am hopeful that we shall very soon be in a position in which we can meet persons who intend to erect new buildings and factories with a view to discussing with them what is the appropriate way in which provision should be made in those structures.

Mr. Howard: I hoped that the Home Secretary would extend his discussion on the question of the Civil Defence forces a little wider than the local authorities. It may be that there are points of view which are not entirely in conformity with those which he will get from the local authorities.

Mr. Ede: There are certain organisations, which the Home Office have encouraged, which have kept together a nucleus of past workers. Where we can, we shall endeavour to ascertain their views about some of these things, especially as it will be a volunteer force and we desire as far as we can to meet their views in the question of organisation.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Scollan: I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and the hon. Member opposite brought a breath of fresh air into the discussion of this Clause. I do not agree with the Home Secretary and those who support him with regard to the point of view they put about paragraphs (a) to (e) as representing the proper kind of defence for which we ought to make provision and vote money in preparation for the forthcoming war. The first vital mistake is to create among the people of this country a psychology that the future war is to be in the near future, and that it is inevitable. That is the first purpose of a Bill like this.
The second point is that these five paragraphs would be a splendid preparation for dealing with raids in the last war. This is typical. The mentality of the War Office in particular is always to prepare for the next war by preparing for the last one. We had that experience in the Boer War. They fought the Boers in the way they had fought the Zulus, and were well whacked. Ulti-

mately, they took two years and. twice as many men as were anticipated to win the Boer War. The 1914–18 war——

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Bowles): The hon. Gentleman must confine himself much more closely to the Motion which is being discussed, and must not go back to the Boer War.

Mr. Scollan: I was only speaking about the experience of the Boer War as an illustration of the way we prepare for future defence or war—always out of date. Take, for example, paragraph (c), which provides for
the instruction of members of the public in civil defence and their equipment for the purpose of Civil Defence;
On the last occasion on which we discussed the atomic bomb in this Chamber we were seriously told that the preventive for the effect of the atomic bomb was brown paper.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Nonsense.

Sir J. Anderson: The hon. Member should not misrepresent what was said. I analysed as best I could the various phenomena connected with an atomic explosion. I discriminated between those aspects which are really very dangerous and those which are not. I said that the phenomenon of flash burn was one danger which could be guarded against by very simple means. That is confirmed by the very highest authority. Other aspects are quite different.

Mr. Scollan: The defence of brown paper against flash burn depends on how near or how far away one is, and the authorities are agreed on that. Consequently, the size and power of the atom bomb and the area it covers means that the brown paper cure is simply a fantasy and is of no use whatever. That is one of the things which is seriously brought forward obviously to allay the fear of the civil population with regard to atomic warfare. In my opinion that is betraying the confidence of the people by trying to make them think it is not as bad as it was painted after what happened at Hiroshima.
The next point is in regard to the Government's proposal to train the civil population—obviously on the same lines


as in the last war. There is reference in paragraph (e) to
'the provision, construction, maintenance or alteration of premises, structures. …
It is admitted by the powers that be that there is no structure which can stand up to the atomic bomb. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes. Hon. Members say "No." Will they tell us what kind of structure stood up at Hiroshima? Not one stood up there and there is not one in this country which would do so. The great difficulty is that because another Power played power politics, we immediately jumped to the conclusion, that we, a nation almost bankrupt as a result of the last war, must declare ourselves prepared to go to war again. In my opinion, the Government today who declare that they intend to get ready for the next war are simply asking for war. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] They are. We know that today the peoples of the world do not want another war or anything to do with war.

Mr. Stokes: Then they should sack all their Governments.

Mr. Scollan: Yes, it would be a good job if they did.

Mr. McKie: Anarchy.

Mr. Scollan: The hon. Member says "anarchy," but is anyone saying that the dropping of atomic bombs on the civil population is not anarchy? This country of all countries cannot be defended in atomic war. Take this city of London, in which there is the greatest concentration of population in the whole world. Three or four atomic bombs would wipe it out. The same applies to Sheffield, Manchester, Glasgow. What would be then left of this island after that? [An HON. MEMBER: "Scotland."] Part of Scotland might be left. What is the use of spending this money in trying to fool people into believing that the Government can protect them? The Government cannot protect them and they ought to be told that is the case, but that if they are prepared to be taken into war, the Government are prepared to lead them into it.

Mr. McKie: I feel that I must intervene to say how much I deplore both the speeches made by Scottish Members from the Socialist benches this afternoon, that which has just been delivered by the hon.
Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) and that delivered by my political neighbour the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). The hon. Member for West Renfrew in effect complained of the bad psychology of Clause 1, and suggested that the drafting of it was merely encouraging the general public to think that war was imminent. I would ask him to reflect on the words he used in this House in July this year against his own Front Bench, whom he is always embarrassing. when he can. I think it was when the Foreign Secretary was making an important pronouncement that the hon. Member got up and asked if any assurance could be given that we should reach the Adjournment without war being declared. Who was responsible for creating a bad psychology on that occasion? It was largely the hon. Gentleman himself.
The hon. Member spoke, as did the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, of the efforts being made in Clause 1 and in the whole Bill to protect the civil population, and said that in any event it was no use making preparation at all, that if there is to be another war we shall all go under, that we shall all suffer the same fate as Hiroshima. It does not seem to me that Hiroshima is a happy example. No adequate protection was prepared there against any bomb, so far as I am advised. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should think again before he brings before this Committee or the House such a suggestion as that. The hon. Member objected to an interjection I made, when he said that we must leave things to take their course. I said that that was merely suggesting anarchy. I am of that opinion and I was confirmed in it when he said, in effect, "Anarchy if you like; away with all Governments; sack the lot." The hon. Gentleman appears to dissent, but if he will read HANSARD tomorrow he will see that I am not very far out in my representation of what he said. If we are to conduct our affairs on those lines, we might as well throw up the sponge altogether.
I do not suppose that we shall divide against this Clause. We object to certain things in it, as the hon. Gentleman has heard, but we are at one with the Government in saying that we must take all adequate precautions within our power to protect the civilian population. But


the hon. Gentleman and his confederate say that we must make none. I hope that their words will be given——

Mr. Scollan: Mr. Scollan rose—

Mr. McKie: I will not give way.

Mr. Scollan: But may I——

Mr. McKie: We are in Committee and if the hon. Gentleman takes exception to my words it is perfectly open to him to rise and make another speech——

Mr. Scollan: Not another speech, but to correct the hon. Member.

Mr. McKie: The hon. Member gets a very fair share of time in this House. I generally give way, but I shall not do so on this occasion. I hope that the two speeches will be given the widest publicity in Scotland where they will not be at all acceptable. I was in the constituency of the hon. Member the other day and I can assure him from first-hand knowledge, that feeling against such a speech as he has made will run very high indeed.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Civil defence functions of local and police authorities.)

Mr. Peake: I beg to move in page 2, line 25, to leave out "exempt," and to insert "exclude."
This is merely a drafting Amendment. Clause 2 provides for the exemption of certain functions and we think the right phrase to use is to exclude certain functions.

Mr. Ede: I think the word suggested by the right hon. Gentleman is the better word for the purpose of the Bill, and I have much pleasure in accepting the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. Williams: Would the Home Secretary give us an explanation of this Clause? It is a Clause of considerable importance and, dealing as he does with the functions of the police and matters of that kind, I feel that we should benefit

from such an explanation, especially one or two hon. Members who sit behind the right hon. Gentleman. It is clear that there are a number of hon. Members who wish to be in a position to understand the Bill, especially those who are on the other side of the Committee. We on this side understand the Bill, but I feel we' should like, on the authority of the Home Secretary, a real explanation of this Clause which was not fully explained on Second Reading.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Deputy-Chairman rose—

Mr. Williams: But I did ask the Home Secretary for an explanation, Mr. Bowles, and I feel sure that he was prepared to give it to me.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) should not assume that he is the only person who may wish for information on any particular Clause and that when he sits down the whole business on the Clause is finished. I was anxious to see if any other hon. Member wished to speak before I replied. As a matter of fact, I had just risen from my seat when the Deputy-Chairman rose.
This Clause deals with the Civil Defence functions of local and police authorities when the Bill comes into operation. With regard to the Amendment that was not called, namely, in page 2, line 7, to leave out from "for," to the third "the," in line 8, which was a similar Amendment to that on the first Clause, I am not at all proud of the words that are in the Bill. I recognise the force of some of the criticisms that have been urged against them, and between now and the Report stage I shall try and find some words which I can put into the Bill to make the meaning possibly clearer, and which will not be quite so ugly in their construction.
6.15 p.m.
This Clause deals with the position of police authorities and local authorities under the Bill, and empowers the making of Regulations to ensure that the various functions of the local authorities shall be carried out under regulations made by the Minister in such a way as to conduce to the most effective Civil Defence that is possible in the circumstances. I wish to make it quite clear that in all these regulations we shall, before making them.
take into consultation the recognised associations of the local authorities. If we are to get effective working in this sphere it will have to be by willing cooperation, and not by the imposition of duties on local authorities where they feel that those duties are imposed in circumstances which will not enable them to do full justice to them.
Under Subsection (2, c) if there should be a local authority or a police authority which fails or refuses properly to discharge the functions, it will be possible for the Minister who is designated for that particular purpose either to perform the service himself or to get someone else to do it—possibly some neighbouring local authority or some commissioner—and to charge the local authority with the expense of carrying out that service.
Here again, as I said on Clause 1, we shall endeavour, in consultation with the local authorities, to have regard to the possible nature of future wars and not merely to be bound by what proved to be more or less efficacious during the 1939–45 war. As our joint planning staff evolve ideas we shall consult with them as to the most effective way of bringing those ideas into operation in the various localities.

Mr. C. Williams: I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman, but may I say in reply to what he said in the first place that there was no question of my thinking that after I was replied to, that was all. The last thing I would ever do would be to try to prevent any one speaking on matters of this sort which are of such wide interest to the nation as a whole. I was a little afraid that the right hon. Gentleman might not get his speech in, and that was the only reason why I did rather encourage him.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman very sincerely for the reply which he has given and I particularly welcome what he said about Subsection (2, c) where the Minister, in certain circumstances, can have the power to operate a method of doing the work for the local authorities. It will not be necessary in most of the local authorities which are well administered. It will certainly not be necessary anywhere in the West of England. But from one or two speeches which we have heard today it is conceivable that Socialist authorities might make trouble over this matter, and I am glad that he has taken

the bold line and put this in the Bill so that he may be able to deal with any recalcitrant authority. I feel sure that the authorities which he must watch most closely are those which are Socialist controlled, for those are the real danger because of what is known as the Communist trouble.

Mr. Tiffany: What is the position where the area of a local authority and the police authority do not combine? Would there be any conflict in such a position?

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. The local authority will discharge functions as a local authority and if it is not a police authority it will not be called on to discharge police functions. In the counties the police authority is the standing joint committee which is not a local authority at all but is one of the amazing hybrids that, somehow or other, get into English local government. That is why it is necessary to distinguish between the local authority and the police authority. Over the greater acreage of England and Wales, the police authority is not a local authority at all.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Grant towards expenses of local and police authorities.)

Mr. Henry Nicholls: I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, to leave out from "Treasury," to the end of line 27, and to insert:
shall provide for and require the complete reimbursement by the designated Minister of the whole amount of any expenses incurred by local authorities or police authorities or statutory water undertakers, as defined in Section one of the Water Act, 1948, not being local authorities, in or in connection with the discharge of functions conferred on them or any of them under the last preceding section or in connection with Civil Defence
The purpose of this Amendment is to secure, if possible, 100 per cent. reimbursement to local authorities in respect of Civil Defence expenditure—not for certain items but for all items. That would place local authorities on a par with the National Defence organisation. Certainly, Civil Defence will need to be a national organisation——

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: On a point of Order. I should have thought that this Amendment, as explained by the hon.
Member, would clearly have the possible effect of raising a charge upon the subject. I put it to you, Mr. Bowles, that complete 100 per cent. reimbursement in all cases, as he suggests, would have that effect.

The Deputy-Chairman: Although the Amendment may seem to increase the charge, nevertheless, it is within the terms of the Money Resolution.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: I looked at the matter rather carefully from that point of view. The Clause says:
The said grants shall—
(a) in the case of such expenses as may be prescribed … by the regulations, be grants by way of complete reimbursement. …
I should have said that it was not compulsory here but, as I understand it, the hon. Member seeks to make it compulsory.

The Deputy-Chairman: That may be so. Nevertheless, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that no financial limit is put in the Money Resolution. Therefore, I think that he is wrong. As no limit is set, I think the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stratford (Mr. H. Nicholls) is in Order.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: There is no limit, but I should have thought that the principle of complete 100 per cent. reimbursement must place a higher charge upon the subject than the principle of less than 100 per cent. reimbursement. That is how the matter appeared to me on reading the Amendment. If you Rule otherwise, naturally we bow to your Ruling.

The Deputy-Chairman: The Amendment would change the principle to some extent. Nevertheless, the limit is the sky, to use a colloquial expression. I think that the hon. Gentleman is in Order.

Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful for your Ruling, Mr. Bowles. We back benchers have sufficient difficulties to contend with from our own Front Bench without the intervention of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. This matter was raised during the Second Reading when the Minister of Health replied to the Debate. He sought a suitable phrase and he had the assistance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Scottish Universities (Sir Anderson) from the Front Bench

opposite. Between them they seemed to be perfectly agreed that 100 per cent. would provide complete administrative subservience. That is a nicely rounded phrase which seemed to please them. We are getting near to Christmas time, the time of crackers, Yule fires, and bogy and ghost stories. Perhaps it is natural that we should be expected to be nervous of a bogy story of that description. In fact, we members of local authorities have lived so long with this bogy that it is now one of the family. One assumes that if 100 per cent. is complete subservience, then 75 per cent. merely produces grandmotherly interference.
I had an experience in this connection today when I passed a gang of men with two lorries who were busy taking away the remains of a badly blitzed church. Adjacent to it there was a brick-built surface shelter. Good sense would suggest that in clearing one, we should also clear the other instead of making special journeys for each. The truth is that we dare not shift the shelter unless and until the appropriate Department of the Government approves the project otherwise we lose any grant that might be payable. If that is not administrative subservience, I should like to know what is. The truth is that the Government Department concerned will not spend a penny until and unless they are fully satisfied about what will be done with the whole of the grant. Whether 75 per cent. or 100 per cent. is paid will not make any difference.
The Bill asks us as local authorities, to sign a blank cheque, to say that we will pay up to 25 per cent. of such expenditure as may be necessary for Civil Defence purposes. Many hon. Members claim business experience. I ask them whether it is good business for anybody who claims to be handling public money to have an arrangement such as this. Is it something that could be entered into in good faith on behalf of the burgesses of the borough? We are asked to sign a blank cheque to pay up to 25 per cent.—of how much? No one can say what the total bill will be. No one can assess the total amount. Yet we are asked to sign a blank cheque for up to 25 per cent. of the total. That is unreasonable.
There are other arguments, but I consider that that alone should be sufficient to persuade my right hon. Friend to give


way on this point, or at least to offer to consider the matter further with the possibility of an Amendment being proposed on Report stage. If he is unable to do that, I suggest that the least he might do is to provide a ceiling beyond which the local authority should not be required to contribute. He must have in mind that the incidence of expenditure on Civil Defence will be far greater in some areas than it will be in others. Ten per cent. in West Ham would be far more than 25 per cent. in Bournemouth. Yet West Ham is far less able to bear a heavy rate demand of that description. Will the right hon. Gentleman fix a ceiling beyond which local authorities will not be asked to pledge public finance?

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I wish to support the argument put forward by my hon. Friend. A local authority which has no say in whether or not there should be a war, should be guaranteed the whole expenses of Civil Defence. This Amendment is one which could, and should, be supported not only by the Home Secretary but by every hon. Member, and particularly by those who have the privilege and the great difficulty of representing what are described as the blitzed areas. Hon. Members representing the blitzed areas know from their own experience how those areas suffered during the war, not only by aerial bombardment and its cost, but, what is more important, by the losses which they suffered after the war through not being able to recover rates from the devastated factories, houses and other establishments in their areas.
Let us take the case of West Ham, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend. It is a very important area in peace time, but more particularly is it so in war. It has very large docks, very large railway undertakings and I believe it has the biggest gasworks in the country. If there is to be a war, and we all hope that there will not be one, it is obvious that, immediately, an area such as West Ham would be one of the targets which the potential enemy would try to attack. We find that these areas are largely poor, working-class areas, and they suffer not only from aerial bombardment and damage to property, but, thereafter, as in the case of West Ham, they have to spend years and years

in trying to find the money to pay for the damage which has been caused through no fault of their own.
The Home Secretary has suggested that, in some instances, he is going to pay 100 per cent. Why only in some instances? Supposing that the Government decided that, because of the vulnerability of areas like West Ham, they needed special anti-aircraft or radar equipment, would this House or the Government expect West Ham to find the cost of it out of the local rates? Obviously not. During the last war, around the coastal areas, there were many barbed wire entanglements and concrete pillar obstructions erected in order to prevent any attempted invasion. Hon. Members representing those coastal towns would have been the first to complain if the cost of those works had had to be found out of the local rates.
I cannot see how the Home Secretary can in any way logically uphold this suggestion that the local council shall have imposed upon it 25 per cent. of the cost of Civil Defence. I am hoping that some of my hon. Friends on this side will support me in this Amendment, and I am also hoping that we might have support from some hon. Members opposite. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) has left the Committee, as he has taken a very active part so far in the discussion on this Bill. I should have liked him to say, on behalf of his constituents in Torquay, that he realised that, as they happen to be in a fairly safe area, they would be only too willing to bear half the cost, or, indeed, the whole of the cost, of Civil Defence so far as one of the more dangerous areas is concerned. We have a number of small areas which already possess all that they could desire in wealth and rates, and which are also in the position of being fairly safe areas, with none of the difficulties of the problems associated with aerial bombardment, and, in addition, do not have the worry and trouble of finding money like blitzed areas such as that which I have the honour to represent, together with my colleague.
We in West Ham, and I think other hon. Members also, feel very strongly that we ought to divide the Committee, if necessary, on this Amendment. I


mentioned this point during the Second Reading Debate, and I hoped that the Home Secretary would put forward this Amendment. I understand that it is possible for him to change his mind on this question and make the necessary alteration on Report stage. If he can give us an assurance that he will do so, I feel convinced that my hon. Friends who are supporting this Amendment will not press it to a division, but, speaking for myself, and, I think, for some of my hon. Friends who support the Amendment, I must say that, unless we can get something in the way of what we feel to be a fair, reasonable and sympathetic understanding from the Home Secretary we most certainly will divide the Committee, because we feel that, here again, the blitzed cities which have been neglected in the past are, in fact, not only to continue to be neglected in the future, but will be penalised through no fault of their own.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I rise briefly to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend. In the first place, I should like some elucidation from my right hon. Friend as to the exact significance, in Subsection (2, b), of the words "in other cases." It is not clear to me what is contemplated by those words, what expenditure is contemplated and for what activities the local authority is expected to contribute payments.
Whatever expenditure the local authority is called upon to meet, whether it be great or small, I submit that this Amendment raises a very important matter of principle. That is the question whether Civil Defence shall be a national charge, which the nation as a whole should bear, or whether there should be some part of it borne by the local authorities, and as events have proved in the past, borne unequally by blitzed areas. It is abundantly clear that the needs for Civil Defence in the blitzed areas in any future war will be greater than those in other areas and that the need for preparation will be greater. It is no accident that the blitzed areas are the areas of docks, factories, railways and power undertakings. In the event of another war, these same areas will again be the blitzed areas, and they will again be faced with disproportionate expenditure upon Civil Defence.
Surely, this is a matter for the nation as a whole? This expenditure on Civil Defence, to which the local authorities are asked to contribute, may be necessary in the national interest, but it is surely unproductive economically and does not help the local authorities to meet their own problems. I do not think it is conceived in this Bill that there are to be more hospitals, more schools or provisions of that kind. This Civil Defence expenditure may be necessary from the point of view of the strategy of the nation, but it is economically unproductive to the local authorities concerned, and, in those circumstances, it is surely only proper that the nation should bear the burden of paying.
I submit that it is just as inequitable to expect West Ham to pay more for Civil Defence because it happens to have docks, factories and power undertakings within its boundaries as it would be to expect Aldershot to make a special contribution to the War Office because there happen to be a lot of soldiers there. It it inequitable, it is not logical at all, and I therefore ask why should West Ham and any other blitzed areas pay more than lucky areas like Weston-super-Mare, which happily avoided the catastrophe of destruction in the last war. I do not know whether I am right in what I say about Weston-super-Mare, and I am sorry if I am not, but there are other areas in the country which mercifully escaped destruction.
It is possible, in spite of the atom bomb, that in the future some areas in this little island may again escape destruction. If that is so, surely it is right that those areas should pay a proportionately equal part of the national burden. In the last war, West Ham—if I may be forgiven for again referring to the area which I have the honour to represent—paid dearly in life and property for its part in Civil Defence. Over 1,200 people were killed in West Ham and over 6,000 were wounded. Is it not a little bit sordid that, in view of that record, West Ham should now be asked to pay a special contribution for Civil Defence expenditure in preparation for a future war? Is it not somewhat squalid? 
I ask my hon. Friend to give close attention to this matter. I am sure he is sympathetic towards us because blitzed


areas throughout the country are in very serious financial difficulty at the moment owing to the war. If we want the morale of those areas to be maintained in the event of any other national danger, we shall not help to maintain it by measures of this kind. As a nation, we must squarely face the necessity of making expenditure on Civil Defence a national expenditure, chargeable upon the Exchequer.

Mr. Edelman: I wish to support this Amendment because I believe that, in its present form, the Clause distributes the burden of Civil Defence inequitably among local authorities. It may, in fact, even lead to inefficiency, because its effect will be to discourage local authorities—perhaps even those in vulnerable areas—from entering into the necessary expenditure to safeguard against the likelihood of war. The last war established the fact that although the 1937 and 1939 Civil Defence Acts distributed the burden of Civil Defence equally among the various local authorities of the country, the actual burden of enemy attack was borne unequally by different areas.
Quite clearly, localities which are natural strategic targets, like the City of Coventry which I represent, are bound to be as attractive to a potential enemy in any future war as they were in the last war. What is more, those localities are still suffering from the disasters of the last war, and the ratepayers of those towns and districts are still paying for the damage caused during that war. Now they are asked to pay these added charges for Civil Defence arrangements in order to prepare against the possibility of another war.
If within those localities the actual rates paid were, in fact, such as to provide equal responsibility in those areas, then there might be less ground for complaint. In point of fact, however, we find that in districts like West Ham and in cities like Coventry, the ratepayers who pay the most, proportionately, are the small shopkeepers and the people who live in working-class houses and who are actually resident in the city. Those who probably derive most benefit from the industries of these cities—the people who live outside and who only come into the city to work, whose factories and business undertakings 'are in the city itself—pay, propor-

tionately, less in rates as a result of the Derating Act than those citizens who actually live in the city, and who spend the whole of their working and non-working lives there. Therefore, the burden of this 25 per cent. expenditure envisaged in the Bill will fall most severely on the smaller people in the various cities up and down the country. For those reasons—because it is inequitable as between localities and as between individuals—I support this Amendment.
6.45 p.m.
But there is another argument—the argument of efficiency. Before the war, there was a tendency to say that local authorities should not have power to engage in particular enterprises unless they also had the financial responsibility for those enterprises. I imagine that when, in 1937 and 1939, the Civil Defence Acts were passed, one of the ideas of imposing the 25 per cent. charge on the local authorities was to prevent them from engaging in too ambitious schemes of Civil Defence. In point of fact, the 25 per cent. charge was designed rather as a curb in order to check too ambitious expenditure.
But with the experience of the second world war behind us, we have some idea of how the cost of Civil Defence will have to be distributed. It is quite clear that the blitzed areas, where armaments were made and will be made again, will be the strategic targets in any future war. As those districts serve the national purpose, it seems to me that the Exchequer, and not the local rates, should be responsible for the cost of Civil Defence. I believe that a national burden should be nationally borne.

Mr. C. Williams: I naturally view this Amendment with a great deal of sympathy. I gather that while I was absent from the Chamber the hon. Member for Upton (Mr. A. Lewis) said that he wished I were present, so that he could draw my attention to the Amendment. There was no need for him to do that. In the first place there is a good deal to be said in favour of those areas now suffering from the results of the war being helped as much as possible. In the usual absence of the hon. Members for Plymouth—those dumbbells who are rarely here, and whose constituents in the West Country have the misfortune of being represented by three most incom-


petent Socialists, and have no one at the moment to put their point of view—I will put to the House what I think is the very difficult position of Plymouth. The people of Plymouth naturally feel that if there are to be new preparations for Civil Defence, everything should be done to help them.
I have studied this matter with great care. In my division—which, owing to the incompetence of the Government, is having its greatest trade and industry crippled through lack of materials—the actual death rate from bombing was double that of the average constituency of Great Britain. Over 10,000 houses were damaged by bombs, and, far from being, as some hon. Members have said, a town which escaped the bombing, it was one of the most heavily bombed towns, apart from Plymouth and special target areas. Therefore, on behalf of my own constituents and of my friends in the constituency of Plymouth, my sympathy is with the purpose of this Amendment. It was a purpose which I appreciated quite early in my studies of this Bill. long before the Amendment was placed on the Order Paper.
Having arrived at that point, I listened very carefully to the Minister of Health. I always look upon his speeches as instructive and interesting, but not necessarily accurate. On the other hand, when I found the Minister of Health, in dealing with this matter of payments on one occasion, actually becoming truthful, I realised that he must have a very strong case indeed, because if he could possibly have avoided it he would have done something else. What is his position on this matter—and it is for his reason that I shall be obliged to vote against the Amendment.
Already the distressed areas, or the comparatively poor areas, will get a very heavy percentage from the Government, many of the places built for them, and a large percentage of the money will come from the Treasury. I have no doubt that the Government Front Bench will be able tonight to give the same figures as those given by the Minister of Health on a previous occasion. I am glad to see the Home Secretary here; he will realise that his best supporters in making this a strong Bill are people like myself who take a real interest in it. I am now

defending him against his own back benchers.
I say quite frankly that the defence of the Government's attitude by the Minister of Health himself was sound. The sympathy and all that kind of thing which I have probably in a much greater degree than the average hon. Member opposite, would almost compel me to vote for the Amendment, but I think in dealing with these matters there is a good deal to be said from the point of view of the Minister of Health, as expressed by him the other day. Where we give the civil authorities the power to carry out these things, the central Government—because this is really a national service—should make a very big contribution. That contribution they are making. Some contribution should be made, however, by the local authorities because they have such a large part themselves in the spending of the money. That gives them responsibility.
I think that will be the Government's argument against this Amendment. I had no intention of speaking on this point until I was informed of the attack upon my constituency. I think I have given adequately the reason why I shall not be able to support the Amendment, but want to emphasise again that if the position in my constituency is upheld as it was in the last war it will be one of the most vital areas of the country in many ways. I will not say why, but we shall certainly have to pay very heavily on that point.

Mr. A. Lewis: If the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) will permit me, I should like to explain that I did not attack him or his constituency in any way. What I said, and I repeat it, was that I wished the hon. Member for Torquay were present because he had taken a very active part in this Bill and I felt sure this Amendment was something he would support and deal with sympathetically. Now that he has returned to the House he has, in fact, outlined his sympathy with the Amendment.

Mr. Williams: I thank the hon. Member very sincerely. That is roughly what I thought he said. I am sympathetic with the Amendment, but I would say that unfortunately my division, owing to many of the things I would not dream


of discussing now, far from being a wealthy division, has now become a poor division, and like the whole of the West country is vastly the worst-fed area in the country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I am surprised at the attitude of some of my hon. Friends, because I must tell the Committee that two of my right hon. Friends, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, had a full meeting with representatives of all the local authorities' bodies and explained the whole position to them most carefully. There was a general discussion. I was present and therefore can speak at first hand about it. At the end of the meeting the local authorities representatives unanimously accepted the Government's proposals as fair and reasonable. I hope the Committee will agree that we cannot possibly consult every individual local authority, but we have every reason to suppose that if we consult the recognised associations of local authorities and obtain an agreement with them without any dissent, we may be permitted to be surpised if we find that their view is now not upheld.

Mr. Lipson: Would the hon. Gentleman explain whether that agreement was an agreement under protest, or whether the representatives were convinced of the justice of the case put forward by the Government and of the adequacy of the contribution?

Mr. Scollan: Before the hon. Gentleman replies to that question, could he also tell us whether the Secretary of State for Scotland met the local authorities of Scotland on the same point?

Mr. Nicholls: And before the hon. Gentleman replies to those two questions, will he say whether this meeting was with local authorities? I presume that he meant it was with the associations. If that is so, is he aware of any contact made with the local authorities at which they could express their views on this subject? I spoke on this subject on the Second Reading Debate and pointed out then that no contact had been made.

Mr. Edwards: I cannot go into a discussion on the contacts between associations and their constituents, but, as I said, the meeting was with the representatives of the recognised local autho-

rity associations—the A.M.C. and other bodies. Those are the people we met. The Secretary of State for Scotland was there and, as I understood it, the Scottish associations were also represented. I have been asked whether the Government's decision was received with a protest. The impression I got was that the local authorities were somewhat relieved and, on the whole, thought we had done well by them. Certainly this was not accepted in a grudging spirit. There was a unanimous view expressed that the Government's proposals, as I put it in my opening remarks, were fair and reasonable.
I do not feel inclined to retract at all from the view put by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health in the Second Reading Debate. I believe we must rely on the local councils for this work and I believe we must treat them in this, as in all matters, as free authorities within our multiform democracy and not follow a course which is likely to end by using them as simply servile agencies. I do not want to labour the point because it has already been made, but I think there is a good deal of misunderstanding about what is here intended. The first misunderstanding arises, I think, from the all-too-facile comparison with National Defence as we ordinarily understand it.
There is a difference between the Army, the Navy and the Air Force on the one hand and the kind of Civil Defence we are dealing with here on the other hand. After all, the ambulances we are using now; the fire brigades we are using now; our roadmen are engaged in road work now; our water engineers are engaged in water undertakings. All this is going on now, and it is quite a false parallel to suggest that Civil Defence is of exactly the same kind as military or air defence. It is not. In a very large measure it consists of preparing now for carrying on existing services in conditions of war. That is a different situation.
What has my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary already told the House? He has already told the House that any expenditure on major capital works and any expenditure on major equipment or appliances kept as a reserve against the possibility of war will be borne wholly by the Exchequer, and that other expenditure will be grant-aided to the extent


of 75 per cent. What does this mean in terms of the last war? It means that it is now the Government's intention to reimburse the expenditure that was reimbursable at the end of the war—there had been a slow progress in this matter—and to grant-aid at a standard rate of 75 per cent. aid what was then grant-aided on a sliding scale. Clearly, the items involving the greater part of the expenditure will be reimbursable, and the burden of the remaining items, the cost of 25 per cent. could reasonably be met by the local authorities, and is certainly not, I think, going to be a heavy one.
7.0 p.m.
I point out again what has been pointed out already, that for a very large number of authorities there will be no question of meeting the 25 per cent. at all, because the expenditure on that account will rank for the purpose of equalisation grant under the Local Government Act. Therefore, there will I am sure be a very large number of authorities whose contribution will be very much less than that. It means that the bulk of the expenditure will be reimbursed, and that there will be a remainder 25 per cent. of which they will meet, though in a number of authorities' areas the Exchequer comes in as a ratepayer, so that in fact they do not bear the whole 25 per cent.
I am interested in the fact that the supporters of this Amendment are all hon. Friends of mine from the county borough of West Ham. West Ham has peculiar difficulties, because it is an area which was severely blitzed, but I do not think it would be right to let the suggestion go by that West Ham has been entirely neglected. After all, in the case of West Ham, as in the cases of some of the other blitzed towns, it has been recognised that there are special problems; and it has been recognised that special Government financial help should be forthcoming. I Think that should be borne in mind. But it is impossible to accept the view expressed in the Amendment. I would say to my hon Friends who are supporting the Amendment that we are not here asking the authorities to sign a blank cheque. We are not asking them to do anything of the kind. The broad categories of expenditure have been explained to them, and even explained

to the House on the occasion of the Second Reading. Further, these classes are to be defined by regulation, and we have already given an assurance, which I now repeat, that in the preparation of these regulations local authorities and other bodies concerned will be consulted. So there cannot be any question of a blank cheque procedure.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: My hon. Friend says that hon. Members have already been informed of the categories of expenditure contemplated. However, there has been no explanation of the expenditure contemplated in these other cases. That is what I have been patiently waiting to hear from my hon. Friend. I should like him to give some kind of estimate, if he can, of what the financial responsibility will be on such an area as West Ham. If he cannot, he is asking West Ham to sign a blank cheque.

Mr. Edwards: One would be asking West Ham to sign a blank cheque if no kind of indication of the categories involving the 25 per cent. had been given. The Committee would not expect me tonight to say what the total overall cost of all this will be. I do not know. Nor do I want to go farther than my right hon. Friend did on the occasion of the Second Reading Debate in stating these categories, because we have told the local authorities' associations that we will discuss that in detail with them. Broadly, the categories are as at the end of the war—broadly, but we do not say that this is the last word on it. We want room in which to move.

Mr. Nicholls: If my hon. Friend cannot fix the upper limit of the blank cheque—and, surely, it is a blank cheque—can he say what is the upper limit in terms of how much in the £ it will be? Can he give us any idea at all? We are paying 23s. in the £ now, and that is a fairly high amount. Can he say whether it will be more or less?

Mr. Edwards: I cannot say anything of the kind. However, there is all the difference in the world between asking local authorities to agree to make a contribution in limits which are defined, even though they are not defined precisely in money terms, and saying to them, "Here it is, we can put anything we like into this category, and you have to pay 25 per


cent." We have told them clearly that the big items of expenditure are to be in the reimbursable class. I cannot add anything more to what I have said, and I conclude by saying how surprised I am that this view should be taken on a matter on which we have been at infinite pains to get agreement and have been in complete accord.

Mr. Lipson: I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will not press too far the argument that because an agreement has been arrived at with representatives of local authorities, therefore we in this Committee have to rubber stamp the decision arrived at, and are not free to express our own views.

Mr. J. Edwards: Nothing I said could even remotely be construed in such a sense. I said I was surprised, because we had had these discussions. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to suggest that anything I said could be interpreted in the way he makes out.

Mr. Lipson: I am sorry if I misinterpreted the hon. Gentleman, but what he said gave me the impression that, as the matter had been settled by discussion with the local authorities, there was no reason why he should not express surprise because this Amendment has been moved. If this Amendment is pressed to a Division, I, personally, will support it in the Lobby, because I think the Amendment is justified from the point of view of equity and of common sense.
According to the Parliamentary Secretary, the Government are prepared to go a long way in meeting the expenditure of local authorities. However, he has given us no reason whatever why they should not go the whole hog. The arguments that justify their going as far as they have appear to justify their covering the whole of the expenditure. He has told us that, concerning these areas covered by the 75 per cent. grant, in cases where local authorities will have to pay 25 per cent., there will be regulations which, before they are issued, will be discussed with the local authorities. What is the value of those discussions when the final decision rests with the Government? Suppose the local authorities should object to these regulations; will the Government say, "We have deferred to the wishes of the representatives of the local authorities, and accept

their view as to what is right and wrong with the regulations? "Or will they not do that, because the local authorities will not agree with them?

Mr. J. Edwards: The last word will be said by the House and another place.

Mr. Lipson: I welcome that, of course, as a statement of fact. However, it seems to me that this Amendment goes to the whole root of the importance that the Government attach to Civil Defence. Civil Defence is every bit as necessary for victory in war as military defence, because in a modern war public morale plays so important a part in achieving, victory. It is essential that there should be Civil Defence readiness everywhere,. because nobody can say where Civil Defence will be required or what particular services will be required or in what degree. So it is essential that Civil Defence everywhere should be adequate, and that it should be ready in time. The only way in which that is likely to be achieved is through the Government's being prepared to admit that this is a national responsibility occasioned by national necessity, and that it is, therefore, necessary that the whole expenditure should be met out of national taxation.
How much money is actually involved in the dispute? What is the reason why the Government are not prepared to meet the comparatively small sum necessary by national taxation? All I ask, in reply to the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary, that part of the work will be in connection with services that are going on normally, is that all additional expenditure which the local authorities can prove to the satisfaction of the Ministry to be required for Civil Defence shall be met by 100 per cent. grant. I ask the Government how they can in logic or in equity refuse to agree to that. It would, of course, have to be approved expenditure, so that if the Government are afraid that the local authorities will be extravagant that will provide sufficient safeguard.
Already, all over the country, rates are a very heavy burden. I ask the Committee to remember that rates have to be paid by people whether they are financially able to do so or not. A good deal of taxation is only paid by those who are in a position to pay Income Tax or because they choose to drink or smoke.
but in the case of rates they have to be paid anyhow; and, therefore, there is always much more argument when expenditure comes out of the rates than when it comes out of national taxation. The burden of rates falls so often on those least able to bear it. What is also unfair is that it falls more heavily on the married man with a family who has to have a larger house than the person with less commitments. Therefore, I ask the Government to view this matter much more sympathetically. I am quite satisfied that if they will do so, they will be able to achieve more promptly and efficiently the purposes of the Bill. The local authorities, without having to look all the time to the financial burden of their commitments on the ratepayers, will be able to concentrate on providing everywhere adequate Civil Defence for their people. One result of throwing this additional burden on the local authorities will be that possibly some of their other services will have to suffer. I do not want that to happen, and, therefore, I ask that this matter may be given further and more sympathetic consideration.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Rankin: I want to urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider his attitude to this Amendment and if possible to accept it. The Parliamentary Secretary, when replying, made a point of the fact that the local authorities had been met and had agreed to the 25 per cent. contribution which they were expected to make under the Bill. He pointed out that they did not disagree with that. I want to ask him this question: If he had told them that the Government proposed to make 100 per cent. contribution and not 75 per cent., does he think that he would have found any disagreement among the local authorities?
I suggest that that point entirely wipes out the defence put forward on the expenditure side which my hon. Friend made. With regard to that point, I am surprised to find no complaint about the 25 per cent. contribution, because I am having complaints about there being certain other measures which the local authorities have to carry out which are making heavy obligations upon them. While, of course, they have been largely released of many other rating obligations,

they realise that once again the rates are beginning to creep up. In view of these objections, I am surprised that no objection was lodged with regard to the 25 per cent. contribution which they have to make.
My hon. Friend also pointed out in his speech that, in any event, they would be largely reimbursed. If they are to be reimbursed, why make the charge at all? The other point which he made was that we cannot really strike an analogy between Civil Defence and the part which the Navy, Army and Air Force will be required to play if war should break out. I find it difficult to accept that point of view because, while we recognise that local authorities may make their own schemes to carry on existing services, all these schemes will require to be worked in with the national defence scheme. They must be integrated into some scheme of National Defence. In that respect, this Civil Defence Bill becomes a Bill for national defence. If such is the case, it ranks on an equal level with the Navy, Army and Air Force and, from the point of view of maintaining it, ought to be treated in exactly the same way as those three other aspects of National Defence. Because of that, I would urge my right hon. Friend to reconsider his attitude to the Amendment and, if possible, to accept it.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want to consider the point of view which has been put forward in connection with the local authorities of Scotland. I must confess some amazement—and Scottish Members will share my amazement—on hearing that the Association of Local Authorities in Scotland have agreed to this contribution without any question or criticism, because I believe that if the local authorities had been given any clear understanding of the bill they are likely to have to meet in these circumstances, the Scottish local authorities would protest. as they normally protest when anything like this comes along.
I believe that if, when the Parliamentary Secretary discussed this matter with the Scottish local authorities there was unanimous agreement, it must have been the most miraculous meeting in history between local authorities and a Minister. I speak with knowledge of the Convention of Burghs in Scotland and


also of the Association of County Councils, and I believe that when it leaks out to local authorities what the position is, they will realise, as Scottish Members are beginning to realise, that the Secretary of State for Scotland has sold them another pup, and this pup is likely to grow into a rather formidable animal.
Last week I was lobbied by the Glasgow Corporation, who expressed great indignation about a matter involving much less financial burden than this. When the Glasgow Corporation realise that they may be called upon to meet 25 per cent. of the expenditure following, say, a bomb attack, which might wipe out three-quarters of the congested area of Glasgow, I feel sure they will lead a revolt against this proposal, if this Committee does not do so tonight.
Only one half-hearted attempt has been made to justify the argument of the Minister, and that has come from the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), who even suggested that we Socialists who have been on local authorities are unmindful of our responsibilities to the people. Nothing of the kind. Although I, for one, have expressed the view that some of the proposals in this Bill are unrealistic and futile, we all agree that everything possible must be done to save the civil population in the event of war. I very much resent his remark that we are unmindful of our responsibilities. He even introduced the word "Communist" in an attempt to sneer at us.
Let us look at some of the responsibilities we shall be faced with under this Bill. One of the underlying arguments is that local authorities will say: "The Government will pay this bill, therefore we need not bother very much about the expenditure involved." The attitude of the Glasgow City Council, the Ayrshire County Council, or any other of the Socialist authorities in the West of Scotland, will be exactly the opposite, because far from being likely to rush into expenditure in preparing premises or building shelters they will look upon this activity to see how it may affect other local authority activities.
In Scotland we have never been accustomed to this 25–75 per cent. method; because our housing programme is worse we have been used to special consideration. Local authorities are not likely to rush into the building of shelters

when they know they cannot even get the building labour and materials for housing. The point of view expressed by the hon. Members for Plaistow (Mr. Elwyn Jones) and Upton (Mr. A. Lewis) is reasonable, and coincides with that of those who have some knowledge of local authority work in Scotland and the rest of the country. The Government should yield to the Committee on this occasion. and do the reasonable thing in a reasonable way.

Mr. Scollan: I rise to support the Amendment and to express astonishment at the attitude taken up by the Government. We had a most interesting contribution from the Parliamentary Secretary, whose speech, if followed carefully, gave the impression that the whole matter had been gone into, right from the beginning, in consultation with representatives of the local authorities, who were perfectly well aware of the burden which was to be placed upon them and were quite agreeable to accept it without any protest at all.
If that is a fair assumption from what the Parliamentary Secretary told us, it is astonishing that a Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency containing several burghs should be bombarded by these burghs to raise in the House the question of the increase in their rates because of new housing schemes and the increased costs in house building. The two things just do not square. How the these local authorities meet the Parliamentary Secretary and say they are prepared to accept a new burden of 25 per cent. on a non-productive project—which is obviously speculative and may not be wanted—and at the same time ask Members of Parliament to get them relief on the increased rates necessitated by these new housing schemes? The two things simply do not tally.
Speaking especially for the local authorities in my county constituency, I do not think the local authorities realise that they may be let in for 25 per cent. of the cost of this scheme when it is put into operation. Strange as it may seem, my constituency contains a large portion of the Clyde Coast, right from Inverkip to Renfrew, including the whole industrial centre which was the enemy objective on the Clyde Coast in the last war. There are a number of little towns,


and also the very large town of Greenock, which will incur enormous expense on Civil Defence for the purpose of defending these very vulnerable and very valuable areas. Suppose we, like the Government, base it on the last war and not on the atomic bombs of any future war. The Parliamentary Secretary tells us that the new services which have been taken over would function in the usual way, and that therefore we must consider them functioning as ordinary services.

Mr. J. Edwards: I must correct my hon. Friend. I did not say anything even remotely representing what he now says. I did not suggest that. I made it perfectly clear in every detail.

Mr. Scollan: Then my memory must be at fault. I thought I heard him say that the fire brigade services, the health services and the ambulance services would be carried on in the usual way. Perhaps tomorrow he will refer to the OFFICIAL REPORT, when he will find that I am right. He said they would be carried on in the usual way and would not cost anything extra. Everybody knows perfectly well that the usual services are of no use in war. The usual services have to be augmented, necessitating extra expense.
Suppose some local authorities say: "If we are to pay 25 per cent. we shall no do it." Under Clause 2, the Home Secretary has power to compel them to pay; he has power to have the work done and charge them 25 per cent. Does any hon. Member suggest that municipalities all over the country accepted that, or that it is not a blank cheque? Obviously, here the Home Secretary has power to say "We consider your town vulnerable and you must take certain steps. We order you to take those steps, and we shall charge you 25 per cent. of the total cost." No municipality, would accept that, if put in that way.
When the Parliamentary Secretary and others met local authority representatives this proposal must have been put over with the aid of a certain amount of soothing syrup, otherwise it would never have been accepted. One of the main Government arguments has been: "We told the municipal representatives that certain categories were laid down, and that

everything in those categories would be paid for as to 100 per cent." I wonder whether the local authority representatives thought to ask whether there was any likelihood of the categories changing between now and any future war? I wonder whether they pointed out that the categories laid down were obviously for the last war and that in a future war a lot of things might be learned, requiring the categories completely to change and necessitating costly items for a new mode of defence? In that case, if it were agreed that the Government should pay 75 per cent. and the local authority should pay 25 per cent., it might make the rates of that burgh prohibitive.
7.30 p.m.
The sensible thing is to regard Civil Defence as National Defence. If it is National Defence, obviously it should be a national burden with national co-ordination. Is anybody going to say that when the last war was on, the searchlights, the mobile guns which were moving up and down the Clyde Valley and the ordinary Civil Defence wardens were not as much a part of Civil Defence. Why should not the whole burden be borne by the State and the whole co-ordination of the services be carried out by the State? Did we not appoint regional controllers and regional commanders? The whole arrangement was co-ordinated from the centre, and, like the Army, Navy and Air Force, it ought to be paid for by the nation.

Mr. Ede: I think there is some misapprehension in the minds of some hon. Members as to the exact range of services which is covered by this Clause. For instance, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) asked whether Glasgow should be called upon to bear 25 per cent. of the cost of an attack upon Glasgow. This is nothing to do with what happens in times of hostilities. This is the way in which the expenditure incurred in making preparations for war shall be shared between the Exchequer and the local authorities. It is, therefore, quite wrong to introduce any point like that. I do not think that on the last occasion that kind of issue was or could have been raised.
I was present—in fact, I presided—at this conference with the local authorities,


and the accredited representatives of all the local authority associations of Great Britain were present. In addition, there were the representatives of the London County Council who, as the Committee knows, is not a member of any of the associations and always attends independently. This proposal had been explained to them carefully in the course of negotiations which had been conducted over some months.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Was an estimated cost given to those local authorities?

Mr. Ede: Why cannot I be allowed to deliver my speech in my own way? I do not interrupt the hon. Gentleman. His speeches would be much better if I did. I must ask him to allow me to stew in my own juice so far as speech making is concerned. What was considered was an account of the services and the way in which the expenses would be divided, and in the course of a few minutes I propose to give the same analysis to the Committee so that hon. Members will see exactly what was involved.
We were fortified very much by the fact that Glasgow was represented at that conference, and quite appropriately in a matter of high finance like this the Glasgow representative was the treasurer. I cannot be expected to be more zealous on behalf of the rates of Glasgow than the Glasgow treasurer. The local authorities had had an opportunity of studying this matter. It was carefully explained to them by me in detail. There were one or two representatives present who, when the question of 100 per cent. was ventilated, pointed out the danger of getting 100 per cent. for these running services, for they recognised, as I think the Committee will see when I come to it a bit later, that it would have been very dangerous for them, if they desired to maintain municipal autonomy, to accept 100 per cent. for some of the services for which 75 per cent. will be paid.
I think, therefore, that it may be a good thing if I indicate to the Committee the kind of services on which we shall pay 75 per cent. Let us take emergency water supplies. They consist of building connecting mains between the area of one authority and another, and perhaps providing an additional reservoir in some places. The constructional works

are of considerable magnitude. They will all be paid for at the rate of 100 per cent. reimbursement. What the local authority will be asked to pay 25 per cent. towards is the maintenance of those works once they are established. Once they are established one can rest assured that it will be to everybody's advantage that they shall be used as part of the ordinary water undertaking in the area. The maintenance of a water main and of a reservoir is a comparatively trivial expense, and to pay only 25 per cent. towards the upkeep of constructional works of that kind for which the capital expenditure has been entirely reimbursed is a very advantageous arrangement indeed for the water undertaking or the municipality which may be in charge of the water service.
When we come to such matters as auxiliary fire appliances, the capital cost of getting additional fire appliances which are not required in the ordinary fire equipment of the borough or county will be defrayed 100 per cent.; but it is to be hoped that there again these fire appliances will not merely be examples of what can be done with a little spit and elbow grease but that they will be used from time to time in the ordinary work of the local authority. There again the maintenance cost is trivial as compared with the capital cost, but if the local authority is getting the advantage of having these appliances available and using them from time to time, I should have thought 25 per cent. of the maintenance cost of the machine was no very great payment to make for a very considerable improvement in the local municipal efficiency.
Then we have such things as fire hose. I cannot think that it is any serious imposition on a local authority to be asked to pay 25 per cent. of the cost of this material which they are using and wearing out in the course of their ordinary operations. When we come to such things as premises for training, which may involve very considerable costs in certain areas, they are entirely reimbursed. The kind of service, therefore, on which the local authorities are asked to pay 25 per cent. is the ordinary running service which has been augmented for the purpose of Civil Defence and will be used from time to time in the course of the local authorities' own operations.

Air-Commodore Harvey: The Home Secretary said that the central Government would pay 75 per cent. towards other equipment, such as additional fire engines. Does that cover the charge for additional buildings and personnel to maintain that equipment?

Mr. Ede: The Government pay 100 per cent. towards the capital cost of acquiring the new fire appliances, and if it involves additional housing which is a permanent work necessitated by the augmentation of the service for Civil Defence purposes, that also ranks for the 100 per cent. grant, but the maintenance, as the local authority is benefitting from the equipment every day, particularly in times when there happens to be a fire, will rank for grant at 75 per cent, instead of the normal 25 per cent.

Mr. K. Lindsay: That seems to be a severe criticism of the existing fire service.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman ought to be a little acquainted with the Fire Service before he says such a thing. I am astonished at the way in which fire appliances have developed in efficiency and usefulness during the past few years. There are many areas in the country, including the county of London, where in peace time the fire service need not be anything like as well equipped in numbers of machines as the war-time service ought to be. Anything that is required above the peace-time establishment ranks for 100 per cent. grant, but for the maintenance it will be 25 per cent. Let us now take the problem of shelters. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) said that they would not build shelters in Scotland.

Mr. Scollan: I am afraid that is not true. I did not say that.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: And I did not say it either.

Mr. Ede: It was said by somebody. Whoever it was said that the local authorities would be more concerned with housing.

Mr. Scollan: What I actually said was that if some town decided not to build these shelters and not to take part in Civil Defence, my right hon. Friend had power in Clause 2 of the Bill to compel them.

Mr. Ede: A little more than that was said by one or other of my hon. Friends.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: What I said was that the local authorities were not likely to spend extravagant sums in that way because they would prefer to concentrate on housing, which would be quite right.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member will now see that the local authority will not be asked to spend a penny on shelters, because that is a capital charge and will be borne 100 per cent. by the Exchequer where it is decided that these shelters shall be built. Once a shelter is built, the maintenance costs are practically negligible, but the local authority will for the maintenance receive a grant of 75 per cent. That is the broad distinction that I draw between the things that will be fully reimbursed and the things for which 75 per cent. will be available.

Mr. Lipson: Could my right hon. Friend give the Committee an assurance that the items he has mentioned which come under a 75 or 25 per cent. grant are the only major items, the local authority will be called upon to pay?

Mr. Ede: I have tried to give the Committee as complete a list as I can, because I am not going to prophesy that between now and the time when we need not trouble about Civil Defence, or, unfortunately, when Civil Defence passes from this preparatory stage into an active stage, certain other things might not have to come in—because I am not engaged in getting ready for the last war. I fought in the last war but one, and I am engaged now in trying to meet all the contingencies that research and science indicate to me may have to be met in the future. Therefore, there may be other things brought in, but the division between the two rates of grant of 100 per cent. and 75 per cent. will follow the general principle which I have laid down and which I believe to be a sound and defensible principle. I hope it will be seen that this 25 per cent. is not a serious charge, but is one which it is necessary to make in order that the running expenses, which will be partly for the ordinary municipal equipment of the town, shall be fairly shared between the Exchequer and the local rates.
7.45 p.m.
From my experience of going on deputations I was a bit nervous when I went


to receive this one, because I thought of some of the arguments that I had heard in the past might have been advanced but those responsible leaders of local government from the boroughs and counties of England, Wales and Scotland felt that the whole situation had been carefully and justly analysed by the Government, and that the arrangements we offered were appropriate to the situation that we find now. Let me repeat, so that there shall be no doubt about it, that these rates of grant apply only to preparatory work. They do not of necessity indicate what would be the appropriate way in which these services should be financed, if, unfortunately, we were involved in a war and if from passive Civil Defence we passed to what I might call combat Civil Defence. That obviously would be another matter.
I want to repeat the pledge given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health and to assure the Committee that we shall consult the local authorities' associations in drafting the regulations and in allocating the various services. They will be brought before the House by Affirmative Resolution, and I believe that in the spirit of co-operation which we have established with the local authorities of Great Britain we shall find that this very vexed and difficult question has been amicably settled on a basis that both sides can accept as reasonable.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: If these additional services involve rather more substantial sums than my right hon. Friend contemplates, will he give us an assurance that he will not make those services a local charge at all, and if he finds the expenditure may become higher than he assumes, can he give us an assurance that he will not expect the local authority to bear it?

Mr. Ede: I cannot answer a hypothetical question of that kind. I believe that the relationship between the local authorities associations and the Government on this matter is one on which we can talk quite frankly to one another. There were some people on that deputation who used to come with me on deputations. They had no hesitation in talking frankly to me and we conducted these negotiations on a frank basis. Generally they start off by asking me whether I wish them to be frank and I

say, "Certainly provided it is to be reciprocal."

Amendment negatived.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I beg to move, in page 3, line 23, to leave out "by way of," and to insert "which may amount to."
The object of this Amendment is to meet the point to which attention was called in the Second Reading Debate by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). It affects a phrase in Subsection (2, a) and makes it read not that grants shall be by way of reimbursement, but that they may amount to reimbursement. That covers the normal point that a grant is made up to the maximum amount, were it to be complete reimbursement as in this case or a percentage, dependent on the efficiency of the authority concerned.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 3, line 27, at the end, to insert:
(3) Any grants under this Section towards expenses incurred by a police authority in England or Wales shall be paid into the police fund, that is to say, in the case of a combined police authority as defined in Section nineteen of the Police Act, 1946, into the combined police fund as defined in that Section, and, in any other case, into the police fund as defined in the Third Schedule to the Police Pensions Act, 1921.
This Amendment is necessary because the police authorities in England and Wales have no funds of their own. Police expenses are paid out of funds with the raising of which the police authorities are not concerned. For instance, in the case of the ordinary county police authority. it is a standing joint committee which precepts on the county council for the money which it requires, and the county council cannot amend that precept by a single penny. In the case of the Metropolitan Police area, where the Home Secretary is the police authority, all expenditure comes out of the Metropolitan Police Fund which is fed partly by rates and partly by the Exchequer grant, and this money goes into a police fund. It is therefore, necessary to ensure that the money should be paid into the police fund, and this Amendment secures that.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Powers as to land.)

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: I beg to move, in page 4, line 12, to leave out "civil defence."
With your permission, Mr. Touche, and that of the Committee, might we take together this Amendment and the following Amendment. In page 4, line 12, after "shelter," insert:
being any premises, structure or excavation used or intended to be used to provide shelter from any form of hostile attack by a foreign power.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Touche): If the Committee are agreeable, that would be the most convenient course.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: We consider that the wording of the Clause could be improved. Because the words "civil defence shelter" have been used in this Clause, the necessity has arisen for defining what is a civil defence shelter in Clause 9, and in our opinion that involves all the difficulties of the definition of "civil defence." As we see it, the words "civil defence" include trenches, emplacements for the Armed Forces and measures that the Armed Forces may take for their own passive defence. We shall have further discussion on the question of the definition of "civil defence" later on, but my point is that a certain amount of discussion will take place on the words "civil defence" and all the difficulties we see involved in that are also involved in the definition of the words "civil defence shelter" in Clause 9. The operative words in Clause 4 are:
In the discharge of any functions exercisable under this Act"—
that is to say, under Civil Defence. Therefore, any shelter provided under this Clause must be a civil defence shelter and there is no need for the words "civil defence" to be inserted. We wish to remove the words "civil defence" so that under Clause 9 there will arise only the necessity to define the meaning of the word "shelter."

Mr. Ede: I am afraid it is not possible to accept the Amendment. The definition of "civil defence shelter" now appears in Clause 9, and there is an Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member to delete that, and therefore quite clearly we must have regard to that Amendment, as well as to the following

Amendment, in dealing with this one. It will inevitably be necessary to use this expression in regulations made under the Bill, more particularly in the exercise of powers under Clause 6, where we are dealing with shelters for a great group of civilian workers who will be employed in the buildings which will come under Clause 6. The provisions of the Act of 1939, now in suspense, on the subject of shelters have reference to the provision of air raid shelter which is defined in the Act as "shelter against hostile attack from the air," and in the event of the revival of any of the relevant Sections of the Act of 1939, it is intended to follow the obviously desirable course of enlarging the provisions with regard to air raid shelter so as to cover shelter from any form of hostile attack. Therefore, we need this definition for the purpose of ensuring that something far wider than anything which has previously been regarded as air raid shelter shall be included in the powers which we have under the Bill. It is, therefore, desirable to retain this.
In answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Worthing (Brigadier Prior-Palmer), I cannot think that a trench or shelter dug by the Military Forces for their own protection could be regarded as Civil Defence. It is clearly a military work designed to protect the military in the course of an attack and I am surprised to hear that there has been any misgiving in any quarter of the House that the phrase "civil defence shelter" could have been thought to have impinged in any way on what might be required by any of the Forces or any part of them for their own defence when they happen to be in this country.

Sir J. Anderson: I am sorry that the Home Secretary is not prepared to consider this Amendment, which is really of a drafting character. I direct his attention to the definition of "civil defence shelter" in Clause 9 which it is agreed must be looked at in connection with this Amendment. He will see that the wording is very unsatisfactory because "civil defence shelter" is defined to mean:
Any premises, structure or excavation used or intended to be used to provide shelter from any form of hostile attack by a foreign power.
The Home Secretary said that he could not conceive that any shelter dug by the


military authorities for their own purposes would be regarded as a civil defence shelter, but the definition is there as plain as a pike-staff and it is wide enough to cover any shelter.
8.0 p.m.
No reference is made to the agency employed in constructing it. It merely says: any shelter
to be used to provide shelter from any form of hostile attack by a foreign power.
It occurs to us that if the words "civil defence" were omitted before the word "shelter" in this Clause and we imported after "shelter" the words which appear in the definition of a "civil defence shelter," we should get rid of the difficulty and avoid the definition of "civil defence shelter" in Clause 9 and be able to address ourselves solely to the definition of "civil defence." I hope that the Home Secretary will look at this again. It is not a matter which we wish to press, but is purely a matter of drafting.

Mr. Ede: In view of that explanation, I will certainly look at it again. We do not want to find that we are being called upon to pay 100 per cent. reimbursement to the military for providing shelters for military units. If there is any danger that the Clause might be so construed, I think we should have another look at it, and I will undertake to examine this again between now and Report stage.

Brigadier Prior-Palmer: In view of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, to leave out from "shall" to "have" in line 31.
This is a manuscript Amendment. I desire to accept in a few moments the Amendment, in page 4, line 38, which stands in the name of the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson). If I accept that Amendment, as I desire to do, it will render these words unnecessary because they are repeated in paragraph (a) in the proposed Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 33, to leave out "it," and to insert "that or any other land."

I think it will be convenient if we also discuss the Amendment, in page 4, line 35, to leave out from "purposes," to the end of line 38. Subsection (3, a) gives power of entry on land for the purpose
of inspecting it with a view to ascertaining whether or not anything ought to be constructed or done thereon or any use made thereof for civil defence purposes.
The main object of Subsection (3, b) is to enable entry to be made on any other land which it might be necessary to inspect in connection with the land referred to in Subsection (4, a). For example, the inspection of a garden for the purposes of considering its use as a site for a shelter might necessitate the inspection also of an adjoining garden. Subsection (4, b) goes further than this, and these Amendments are designed to confine Subsection (3) to the objects in view. The effect is to add a reference in Subsection (3, a) to any other land and to delete Subsection (3, b). As I have said, these Amendments give us the power we wish to have without going beyond what we legitimately require.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 4, line 35, leave out from "purposes." to end of line 38.—[Mr. Ede.]

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 4. line 38, at the end, to insert:
Provided that a person proposing to exercise a power of entry conferred under this section—

(a) shall, if so required, produce some duly authenticated document showing his authority;
(b) shall not demand admission as of right to any land which is occupied unless twenty-four hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier."
The right hon. Gentleman has already indicated that he is prepared to accept this Amendment. It is designed to bring this Bill into line with a number of other enactments providing the right of entry on land for inspection purposes. Perhaps the latest example is the licensing Measure which the right hon. Gentleman introduced for its First Reading quite recently. It contains a similar proviso to the proviso we are suggesting here. That is to say, it provides that 24 hours' notice shall be given of intention to enter upon land, which also includes houses,


for the purpose of ascertaining whether any Civil Defence works are required thereon.

Mr. Ede: I have already indicated that I am prepared to accept this Amendment. Paragraph (a) merely re-enacts the words we have just left out, and paragraph (b) is a reasonable safeguard for the person whose land it is proposed to inspect. I think that such a person ought to be given some notice, and if 24 hours is satisfactory to the Opposition, I can see no reason to cavil at it.

Amendment agreed to.

Brigadier Head: I beg to move, in page 4, line 38, at the end, to insert:
(4) If:

(a) any person who, in compliance with the provisions of this section, is admitted into a factory or workplace, discloses, otherwise than in the performance of his duty, to any person any information obtained by him in the factory or workplace with regard to any manufacturing process or trade secret; or
(b) any person to whom, by reason of his official position, any information obtained as aforesaid is disclosed, discloses, otherwise than in the performance of his duty, that information to any person
shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £100 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.
This Amendment is similar to the Amendment which has just been accepted by the Committee. There are bound to be instances where officials will have to have access to factories where they may be put into possession of trade secrets which might cause very considerable difficulties. This Amendment is not merely a safeguard in that connection, but it also makes this Bill consistent with other Measures—the words proposed have been taken from a similar Section in the River Boards Act. As I have said, if this Amendment is accepted it will avoid difficulties and embarrassment to business concerns.

Mr. Ede: I would point out, first, that it has not been necessary within the past experience of the Home Office to provide safeguards against persons who have the right of entry on land. However, I recognise that there is a danger and that certain people may feel a lack of confidence in admitting people to

their establishments, thinking that there is a danger of trade secrets being betrayed. Therefore, I can see no objection to accepting this Amendment, although on Report stage I shall wish to add at the end:
to make the penalty both such fine and imprisonment,
which is now fairly common form in this kind of legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, 'That the Clause, as amended. stand part of the Bill."

Major Legge-Bourke: In Subsection (2) there is a proviso which says:
(b) in no event shall the said powers be exercised unless the designated Minister or local authority, as the case may be, is or are satisfied that the shelter will not so obstruct the highway as substantially to diminish the utility of the highway to the public.
I wish to ask the Home Secretary what is to happen when a local authority, for reasons which are based on a false assessment of the danger involved, insists that a shelter should not be erected on the highway. I hesitated to put down an Amendment on this point, because the right hon. Gentleman has better technical advice than I have, but I ask him to consider whether something might not be done to differentiate between the times when the country is at war and when it is at peace. Town and country planning is involved in this matter. There may be some roads which, in peace time, are considered to be essential as public thoroughfares but which, in war time, might not be considered so essential, although desirable as thoroughfares. Is there, under this Clause, a complete tie-up with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning? In the event of a local authority and the Home Secretary agreeing on the erection of a shelter, could the Ministry of Town and Country Planning disapprove? Unless the powers of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning are quite clear there may be a clash of interests. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down an Amendment on Report to make the position clear to all concerned.

Mr. Ede: I think it unlikely that such a divergence of view would occur in peace time. We are now dealing with peacetime preparations for Civil Defence, and while a site might well be marked out on


a highway as being appropriate for a shelter in war time we do not anticipate that many shelters will be erected in the near future. If there were a conflict of opinion we should have to use our sweet reasonableness in order to arrive at a suitable arrangement. I am not sure that in certain cases it will not be more likely that a local authority will press for a shelter, and the Minister might resist on the ground that he does not regard it as essential to peace-time preparations. The question of a conflict with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning will have to be dealt with under regulations made under Clause 2 (2, d). Arrangements will be made to ensure that that Ministry's considerations will have adequate thought bestowed on them when the question of erections and excavations arises.

8.15 p.m.

Major Legge-Bourke: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his answer, but are we to understand that the powers of this Clause are to cease, and that something will be put in its place, in the event of war? I understand that this Bill is only for peace-time purposes, and that a different Bill might be introduced in the event of war.

Mr. Ede: If war comes the kind of points which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has advanced will have to be given very different consideration from that which is given them in peace time. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is an Army officer, and I have no doubt that during military operations he did one or two things that would shock even himself if he tried to do them in peace time. I am not asking him to enter a confessional on that matter, but the kind of thing he has mentioned might be resolved by the harsh necessities of war, in a way which people regret at the time but recognise as a necessity. There were many things we had to do in Civil Defence during the 1939–45 war that none of us would have attempted to do in peace time. One of the difficulties now confronting us is that we were pressed, when hostilities ceased, to remove shelters that were eyesores and were in awkward places. That was done. I have no doubt that some of these shelters, in the event of another conflict, would have to be re-erected, if not in the same places then in places which would give even greater offence than last

time to our aesthetic senses. It must not be thought that in war time any Minister would be limited by the powers that are being granted under this Bill.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Civil defence obligations of constables, firemen, etc., and of members of civil defence forces and services.)

Mr. Burden: I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, to leave out from "brigades," to "are," in line 23.
On Second Reading I found it necessary to refer to the position of local authority staffs who were affected by this Clause. Since then the Home Secretary has received representations from the National Association of Local Government Officers and has, I know, given them most careful consideration. It is my hope that it will be possible to meet the substantial representations made about the wording of the Clause as drafted while ensuring that my right hon. Friend has the efficient Civil Defence services that are so necessary today. I hope my right hon. Friend will be able to deal with the matter on Report in a way which will be satisfactory to all concerned.

Mr. Ede: I have received representations from the National Association of Local Government Officers that they regard these words with some misgiving as placing them in a category different from the rest of the civilian community. It must be clear that there are certain functions with regard to Civil Defence which can only be discharged by the employees of local authorities and that it is desirable that such employees should undergo an appropriate training in order that they should be fitted to discharge those functions in time of war.
I am exceedingly anxious, since we have decided to make this Clause as voluntary in principle as possible, to meet any reasonable misgivings of the National Association of Local Government Officers I can, consistent with having full preparation made to deal with emergencies, should they unfortunately eventually arise. I understand that these negotiations will be continued tomorrow. I will undertake to give full consideration to the points of view that are put in front


of me. If it should be proved that legitimate misgiving can be found in the words that my hon. Friend has moved to leave out, I will endeavour to find more suitable words that will not make the local government officers feel that there is any invidious comparison made between them and the rest of the community. At the same time, I must expect that effective preparations can be made.
I am sure that everyone who was connected with Civil Defence during the war has nothing but praise for the way in which local government officers carried out duties that they never expected to have to bear when they first joined the service. Everyone recognises that they discharged those duties in a highly patriotic way, often in circumstances of great risk and danger, and that there was quite an appreciable number of casualties among them in the course of the operations. I have no doubt that the spirit that animated them then animates them now. Should they unfortunately have to undertake those duties again, they should be fully equipped to discharge such functions as fall to them.

Mr. Burden: In view of what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, to leave out Subsection (2).
This Amendment is intended to fulfil a pledge which was made by the Minister of Health, on my behalf, upon the occasion of the Second Reading. If we are to make a concession we may as well make it as fully and as graciously as possible. The best thing to do is to delete the Subsection. There are some Amendments on the Paper in the name of the right hon. Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson) which would entail the retaining of the penalty for failure to come up on embodiment. I rather think that embodiment is the first stage when we get beyond the proper provision to be made in this Bill. We should make it clear that there are no threats used and that people who undertake the engagement as volunteers will be expected to live up to the obligations they have undertaken. We shall hope that there will be sufficient mutual pres-

sure brought on them by their comrades in the service to ensure that they adequately discharge the obligations they have undertaken.

Sir J. Anderson: In view of the explanation which the right hon. Gentleman has given, hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on this side of the Committee are content to concur in the Amendment, although it goes further than what we had ourselves proposed in our Amendments.

Mr. Burden: I hope that the Committee will allow me to express my appreciation of the Home Secretary's action in moving the deletion of the Subsection. I called attention to the matter in the Second Reading Debate. It is very gratifying that the Home Secretary has responded to what I believe was the almost unanimous wish of the House upon the Second Reading.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Saving for, and power to revive and amend, existing Acts re lating to civil defence.)

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 23, to leave out from "force" to "any" in line 25, and to insert:
(c) adapt as may appear to him necessary.
In my speech on the Second Reading I called attention to the very sweeping nature of the provisions in this Clause, giving power to the Home Secretary in the circumstances contemplated to amend and add to existing statutory provisions. I indicated then that my hon. Friends considered that to be a very tall order and that we should have proposals to make during the Committee stage. It would probably be convenient, Mr. Bowles, if this Amendment and the related Amendment in page 6, line 29, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 30, were taken together.

The Deputy-Chairman: Yes.

Sir J. Anderson: We have tried, in putting forward these suggestions, to preserve powers which might reasonably be thought necessary without going so far as—perhaps by inadvertance—seems to be implied by the Clause as drafted. Our proposal is to leave Subsection (2, b) as


it stands down to the word "force" in the last line but one without any reference to adaptations; that is to say, to take power to bring back into operation provisions of the earlier Acts which are either spent or have been suspended, and then to delete the words "may amend, extend or repeal" which appear in Paragraph (c) and to substitute "adapt as may appear to him necessary" leaving the Subsection to run on as it stands. That at first sight might appear to be a change without any substantial difference, but I am advised that the word "adapt" in this connection has been interpreted by the courts in a way which narrows considerably the implications of the expression as compared with the words that appear in the Clause, namely, "may amend, extend, or repeal," adaptation being held to be such changes as are reasonably necessary to bring provisions into conformity with the actual conditions of the day.
8.30 p.m.
That is the whole purpose of this Amendment. As the Clause was originally drawn, it seemed to me and my hon. Friends to be wide enough to cover, for example, the introduction of a complete system of conscription for Civil Defence in the preliminary preparatory period, with arbitrary age limits applying to men and women alike, which I can hardly think is within the contemplation of the Government. It seems to us that the words which we propose, which would make the provision read
adapt as may appear to him necessary any of the provisions of the said Acts …
etc. should give to the designated Minister or Ministers, if there be more than one, all reasonable latitude without opening the door to changes of the law of the most far-reaching and possibly objectionable description.
By our second Amendment we propose to omit Subsection (2, d), which is equally far-reaching. It states:
may substitute other provisions for any of the provisions so repealed;
By the Clause, as it would be amended if these proposals of ours were accepted, the Home Secretary would have power to bring back into operation the Acts of 1937 and 1939, which are to some extent spent and otherwise in suspense, and to "adapt as may appear to him necessary" any provisions of those Acts. I say

nothing about Subsection (2, e), which is not affected by these Amendments.

Mr. Ede: I have been adjured from both sides of the Committee this evening not to attempt to win the last war but to look forward and realise that I am looking into a realm where prophecy is very difficult, and where it may be necessary for me or my successor—and may he be a very distant successor who really has to contemplate proceeding from preparation to action—to have available an instrument flexible enough to deal with circumstances as they may arise. It is of course difficult, when one is engaged in prophecy of any kind, to be very precise in one's language unless one is certain about what is to happen. The fate that overtook the forecasters of the American election will be in all our minds. They were certain that they knew what would happen, and they had no safeguarding clauses. Apparently the only person who had no doubt at all was the gentleman who announced that he would "knock hell out of Mr. Dewey."
I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difficulty that confronts me. Let me at once admit that this Clause was exceedingly difficult to draft. I had to have two considerations in mind, securing sufficient flexibility and also limiting myself so that I or my successor should not do anything outrageous in carrying out the provisions of this Clause or leave myself open to being tempted to do anything outrageous. I am bound to say that it never occurred to me that this particular Clause would be used to impose conscription upon people.
I had regarded this as being more concerned with the premises of public utility undertakings and private firms, proposals with regard to which I cannot yet announce. It may very well be that when I have had negotiations with representatives of private enterprise, national enterprises and public utility undertakings, there may have to be very drastic revisions of the proposals that were made in the two previous Acts to bring them into line with the requirements, as far as we can foresee them, of the future, and yet still leave us sufficient flexibility to be able to bring the provisions up to date as and when -developments occur. I have therefore had to use words in this


Clause which are very wide in their application. I desire that the Clause itself shall not be so wide as to lead to any of the extravagances that the right hon. Gentleman hinted might be found possible in its working.

Sir J. Anderson: The right hon. Gentleman does not know what sort of Government may have to work the regulations.

Mr. Ede: No, Sir. The first regulations will be made by a very good Government, and I think the second and third—anything up to, let us say, 1955. Of course the right hon. Gentleman, as an Independent Member, looks on these things from a very high altitude, and I have no doubt does survey them with complete impartiality. He must be in great discomfort when this House has only two sides, and he has to choose the less objectionable of them as the one on which he shall sit. But I cannot at the moment accept this Amendment as it is moved. I do not know whether it would be possible for the right hon. Gentleman and myself, with any person not politically associated with him—for he stands in a class apart—but certain other politicians whose views temporarily seem to coincide with his, to come along and discuss this point with me. We could then see whether there are words that could possibly be found which, while retaining flexibility, will limit us, or other people, from doing extravagant things.
I think we may possibly find words that we can incorporate in the Bill which would remove the misgivings that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed. I personally gave a great deal of time to endeavouring to find words that would enable this part of the Bill to be workable, and I admit that it was the most difficult task I have ever undertaken. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to accept this offer in the spirit in which it has been made and that between now and the Report stage—which will be on either Thursday or Friday—it may be possible for us to have consultations that will enable us to see if it is possible to do something that will carry the confidence of the House in this matter.

Mr. Peake: The right hon. Gentleman has I think made a very fair and reasonable suggestion, and I am authorised by

my right hon. Friend, with whose politics I have practically nothing in common, to say that he is perfectly prepared to accept it. However, whatever form of words we ultimately arrive at, we must all recognise that we are giving the Government quite unprecedented powers to proceed by means of regulation in this Clause, and that the only real safeguard which Parliament possesses is the fact that by a subsequent Clause such regulations have to become a subject of an affirmative Resolution of the House. The difficulty about affirmative Resolutions as applied to regulations is that the House can only approve or reject the regulations as a whole. Therefore, it becomes vitally important that the regulations should not cover a wide range of separate subjects.
The right hon. Gentleman could probably do a great deal to allay our fears in entrusting him with these unprecedented powers if he would consider giving some assurance that he will not join together in one set of regulations submitted to the House a variety of subject matter which is not naturally cohesive. If the right hon. Gentleman would consider giving an assurance of that kind, we may easily find a solution to this problem.

Mr. Ede: I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) for the way in which he has approached this subject and the offer made by me. I certainly think that in a matter where the sweep might be very wide indeed it would be indefensible on the part of any Government to attempt to get through some highly controversial matter by making it one in a series of paragraphs to be found in one order the majority of which the House might not wish to question. Sometimes, no matter on which side of the House we may sit, we have been presented with an order in which there may be a number of paragraphs with which we agree but in which there may be one to which we may object. If we vote against the one to which we object we also destroy perhaps a dozen which we heartily support.
I will give an undertaking that the orders shall not be so all-embracing. I gave a similar undertaking with reference to regulations in the course of our consideration of the Emergency Laws (Miscellaneous Powers) which we took upstairs. I think that the promise I gave


has been honourably observed both by my own Department and those of my hon. Friend's who have made regulations under that Measure. I have no hesitation in repeating the promise.

Sir J. Anderson: I am sure that the Committee will be very glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that the Government, in exercising their powers under this Clause, will not resort to the practice which I think used to be known as "tacking." I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the suggestion he has made about the Amendments in my name. In view of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 6, line 25, to leave out, "may."
This and the Amendments to lines 29 and 31 are drafting Amendments.

Mr. Peake: I should like to observe that these three are admirable Amendments which have been copied from an Amendment put on the Order Paper by myself and my right hon. Friends.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 29, leave out "may."

In line 31, leave out "may."—[Mr. Younger.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Howard: I want to refer to the question of this very wide power, though I think that the undertaking and offer which the Home Secretary made will entirely meet my point. I want to make it perfectly clear that I shall find myself extremely unhappy as a rebel, although I have great respect for the views of the right hon. Gentlemen who sit in front of me. In Subsection (2, d) the Minister is given power to substitute other provisions for any of the provisions so repealed. Unless, after discussion with my right hon. Friends, a narrower wording is found, I want to reserve an absolutely full right to vote against these very wide powers.

Mr. Ede: May I say that the observations of the hon. Gentleman shall be borne in mind when we are discussing the

matter. I would not get him into trouble with his own party.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 8.—(Regulations.)

Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 7, line 19, to leave out "Sections two and three," and insert "any of the provisions."
This is a little more than a drafting Amendment. The reference in the text as it stands is only to Sections 2 and 3, whereas there are other provisions in the Bill in which regulations appear, and they should also be covered.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Interpretation, etc.)

The Chairman: I think the first two Amendments are alternative, and perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will indicate which he wishes to move.

Brigadier Head: I beg to move, in page 7, line 30, after "not," to insert:
being measures taken for the purposes of the armed forces nor.
These are alternative Amendments, and I think it might be better if I moved the second one. I think that we on this side of the Committee have no very strong feelings about this Amendment. We put it down because we felt that in the Bill the definition of Civil Defence—and we recognise that it is no easy thing to do—is an unfortunate one. It seems to us, looking at it closely, that it could easily be interpreted to refer to aerial warnings by radar, or to refer to such things as the digging of trenches and making of gun emplacements by civilians for the Armed Forces. Again, it might refer to operations by the Armed Forces, except where armed combat took place, and it might also refer to measures taken and carried out by the Armed Forces themselves which were done purely for their own passive defence.
We felt that it did not fulfil the purpose for which it was intended, and that the best way to set about defining Civil Defence, rather than on the principle


of what is defended, was to define it on the principle of who does the defending. While it is admitted that it is a difficult problem, we felt that the best way would be to give a definition of the object of Civil Defence and then exclude from that category any measures which come under that definition and are carried out by the Armed Forces themselves. That really is the object of this Amendment.

Mr. Younger: I am glad that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has chosen to move the second of the two Amendments, because I think it is the more nearly practicable of the two. We could not have done without the definition suggested by the first one, and we feel that, the one that has been moved is the better one. We appreciate what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said about radar, the functions of the Observer Corps, and so on. It is not, of course, intended to put those duties upon the Civil Defence personnel. On the other hand, if one introduces a phrase such as that proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, we feel there is a danger of ruling out some other functions which might—I will not say will—be considered desirable. One instance which comes from the experience of the last war is that, in London, a duty was put upon the wardens to notify certain incidents, not primarily for the benefit of Civil Defence, but for the R.A.F. I believe it was a question of notifying the first flare dropped, and even notifying the dropping of bombs. That was done specifically for the benefit of the Fighting Services though, of course, it was not a combat duty.
This field is so uncharted, and so uncertain at the present time—we cannot say precisely at the moment what the necessities might be—that we are reluctant to accept a definition which would positively rule out the inclusion in Civil Defence duties of co-operation with the Armed Forces in that sort of way. Therefore, I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not think it necessary to press this Amendment. I know it is not always satisfactory for the Opposition simply to rely on the assurance that it is not intended to include a wide series of functions, such as those mentioned by the hon. and gallant Member, but it seems

that, with this Civil Defence force widely dispersed, it might be necessary, on certain occasions, to ask them to do certain things which were primarily, if not wholly, for the assistance of the Armed Forces, though not amounting to combat.

Mr. Peake: Of course, the importance of the definition of Civil Defence in this Bill lies in the fact that local authorities will be called upon, and in my opinion, quite properly called upon, to contribute 25 per cent. of the normal cost of what falls within the meaning of Civil Defence services. It is, as the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary of State has observed, a very difficult matter indeed to define Civil Defence in modern conditions. At the same time, it is important to safeguard the local authorities from having to contribute 25 per cent. of the cost of measures which should properly be carried out by the Armed Forces of the Crown, and should, therefore, fall upon the Exchequer. It was for that reason that we put down alternative Amendments, of which we prefer the second.
The first Amendment would strike out the definition of Civil Defence altogether, and it would then simply become a matter for the Minister to decide what was or what was not Civil Defence. Of course, if we look at the definition chosen by the Minister in the Bill, it is perfectly clear that it may be construed to include a number of matters properly falling within the province of the Armed Forces of the Crown. Civil Defence, we are told, includes any measures not amounting to actual combat, though affording defence against any form of hostile attack by a foreign Power. Obviously, that is so wide as to include a large number of measures, such as the making of gun emplacements and the digging of trenches, which are not measures amounting to actual combat, but which are designed to afford protection against attack by a foreign Power.
I do not think that, however long the Committee were to go on trying, they would ever find an adequate, satisfactory and conclusive definition of what should or should not be Civil Defence. Therefore, I think we are bound to rely upon the good sense of the Ministers concerned. We take it that the right hon. Gentleman, on the one hand, and the Minister of Defence on the other, will decide between themselves what is or


what is not Civil Defence expenditure. In the circumstances we are bound to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment and to leave the matter there.

The Deputy-Chairman: The right hon. Member cannot withdraw the Amendment, as it was moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head).

Brigadier Head: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy-Chairman: Does the right hon. Gentleman want any discussion on the last two Amendments on the Order Paper?—namely, in page 8, line 18, leave out from "Minister," to "as" in line 19, leave out from "Council," to "Provided," in line 22.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 8, line 18, to leave out from "Minister," to "as."
We should like to have a division on this Amendment. We have already had a full discussion on the first Amendment

we took today, which covered the last two Amendments upon the Order Paper, and I made it clear that we would reserve our right to divide the Committee upon this matter, which we regard as of the utmost importance. We still object strongly to the idea that the designated Minister may be a group of six, seven or eight Ministers acting in a corporate capacity. For that reason, although the matter has been discussed and argued fully, I say once more that we cannot reconcile in our minds the two powers taken in the Bill, the power, on the one hand, for the designated Minister to delegate powers to fellow Ministers, and the power also taken in the Bill by Order in Council to appoint a body of Ministers as the designated Minister for the purpose of the Bill. We think that either one or other must be wrong, and for that reason we propose to divide the Committee upon this Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 237; Noes, 95.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill, as amended, be reported to the House."

Mr. Ede: May I express my thanks to the Committee for the expeditious way in which they have discharged this Bill?

Bill, reported with Amendments; as amended to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 28.]

CLAUSE 14.—(Entry and search of premises, etc.)

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move in page 15, line 12, to leave out "one week," and to insert "fourteen' days."
I think that it would be convenient if this Amendment were taken together with the Amendment in line 39, to leave out "forty-eight hours," and insert "one week." If I may deal with the latter Amendment first, there is no question of delaying entry, if danger to life or to safety of ships or aircraft is involved. All that we are concerned with is entry where a nuisance has been committed by the interrupted enjoyment of someone's use of wireless or television. We think that 48 hours' notice is much too short for that purpose. As the Clause reads, the Postmaster-General need only give up to 48 hours' notice. He can then go to a Justice of the Peace to ask for a warrant to enter the house, if he considers that refusal to allow this has been unreasonable.
I think that 48 hours is much too short a time to allow for this purpose. The people may be away, or it may be very inconvenient to arrange for admission at such short notice, and we see no reason why the period should not be extended to one week. That is in the case where only amenity and not safety is involved. Consequential on that, it would be necessary to extend the period in Subsection (2, c) from one week to 14 days. I need not labour the point. I hope that the Postmaster-General will agree the Amendments are reasonable, and will be prepared to accept them.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): We are prepared to accept the sense of both Amendments. As a mere matter of drafting it would be preferable to say "seven days" instead of "one week" in the Amendment to line 39, and with the hon. Gentleman's agreement I am prepared to move a Manuscript Amendment to that effect.

Mr. Grimston: I am agreeable to that. I should like to thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for accepting these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: In page 15, line 39, leave out "forty-eight hours" and insert "seven days."—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 16, line 2, at the end to insert:
(4) No action shall be taken under subsection (1) or subsection (2) of this section unless,

(a) safety considerations are involved or the offence is under Part I of this Act, or
(b) the person who is alleged to be at fault has had an opportunity of being heard by the Justice of the Peace or sheriff as the case may be."

We are not attempting in any way to restrict the action of the Postmaster-General as regards power of entry on the grounds of safety. This Amendment also is on the question of amenity. The Committee will, I think, agree that the privacy of the home ought to be respected. It may be argued that in many other Bills there is power of entry to inspect for various purposes. That may be necessary, but I go so far as to say it is always regrettable, and there is no reason why we should add—to coin a word—to the "regrettabilities." Here again merely the enjoyment of some other person is involved. The Postmaster-General may on occasion wish to enter, either to see if an order has been carried out or, under Subsection (2), to see if it is necessary to serve a notice.
As the Clause stands, if entry is refused all the Postmaster-General has to do is to go to a justice of the peace and ask for a warrant, and he has to show that entry has been unreasonably refused. The object of this Amendment is to see that the person whose home it is proposed to search has an equal right to go before a justice of the peace to oppose the granting of the warrant. It seems to be only


common justice. The Postmaster-General may decide upon the entry of a home simply on information from an informer who does not like the person concerned. In the case of a block of flats, it can hardly be held to be an unreasonable refusal, but the Postmaster-General might think that it is, and on his evidence the justices of the peace will decide whether or not a premises shall be entered or not. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that the person whose house it is proposed to search shall have an opportunity to show cause to the justices of the peace why a warrant should not be issued. As this is simply a question of a person's amusement, we think that the householder should have that right.

9.15 p.m.

The Attorney-General: While I am always prepared to accept any Amendment moved from the other side which will improve the content of the Bill, I am afraid that I cannot accept this one. I do not think I have ever seen a power of entry hedged round and circumscribed with so many safeguards as the right of entry provided under Clause 14. First, there has to be sworn information before the justices; secondly, that sworn information, dealing with the subject-matter of Clause 14, has to give reasonable grounds for supposing that an offence has been or is in process of being committed; and, thirdly, that not only is there reasonable grounds for supposing that an offence is being or has been committed, but that evidence of the offence has to be found in the premises it is proposed to search, and then only the justice of the peace, those great guardians of the King's peace who protect our liberties in so many other respects, will have the right, if they think fit, to issue a warrant providing for the search of the premises in question.
The justices of the peace, to whom we entrust so many of our liberties, who have such wide powers over matters of this kind, will decide in each case whether, in the circumstances and on oath by the deponent, there are grounds for searching a particular premises. I am not one of those who think that justices of the peace are outside the possibility of criticism or of making mistakes, but I doubt whether there is any body of men

better Qualified to protect the sanctity of the Englishman's home. When we consider the existing rights of entry and how little, if at all, they have interfered with the sanctity of the Englishman's house, it is apparent that the opposition to the proposal contained in this Clause really does involve much ado about very little. I am very glad that Members opposite are suddenly interesting themselves in the problem of the sanctity of the humble home.

Captain Crookshank: Why "suddenly"?

The Attorney-General: The fact is that for the past 100 years Members opposite and their predecessors, without a murmur, have been introducing into Bills provisions that have become law, giving the right of entry on behalf of one commercial undertaking or another, or one local authority or another, without any of the safeguards we are proposing in this Bill. There are a very large number of them. They have been consented to again and again without any great fear on the part of hon. Members opposite, and no very great disaster has resulted from the fact that these provisions have been incorporated in our laws. The security and sanctity of the Englishman's home are still amply preserved and when gallant and chivalrous hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the Committee speak about the possible invasion of the home, it is relevant to say that there are all sorts of provisions under which the home can be entered now by all sorts of odd people without any kind of safeguard or anything of that kind.
I do not know where hon. Members were at the time when Parliament provided that at any moment when the modest housewife was happily wallowing in her bath representatives of the water undertakers might suddenly burst through in order to inspect the meter, the taps or something of that kind. Where were hon. Members on the opposite side of the Committee then? They were on this side of the Committee incorporating such provisions in our law, and no murmur was said in protection of the virtues of the housewife in this matter. So when the electric light companies were authorised to invade the privacy of hon. Members' bedrooms in order to see whether switches were in order or how much electric


current was being consumed, not a word or a voice was raised to protest against this invasion of the sanctity of the home.
We could go through a whole array of statutes from public health to atomic energy, from animal diseases to food and drugs, and from agriculture to insurance, showing that all sorts of powers were given to all sorts of people to enter premises in regard to all sorts of matters without swearing an information, without going to a justice, and without a safeguard of any kind at all. Not a word of protest was made at the time. I am inclined to think that not one word of protest was made then quite rightly because the existence of these powers does not, in fact, involve any invasion of the privacy or sanctity of the Englishman's home at all. On neither side of the Committee are we worried by the existence of these powers, because we know perfectly well that their existence in practice has not been abused.
I continue, as I am sure hon. Members opposite do, to engage in the almost intimate ablutions without posting anyone outside the door to warn us of the near approach of the Water Board officials. I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) lies quite easily on his pillow at night without even dreaming of the possibility of an official of the electric light undertaking coming in and catching him in flagrante delicto. These things do not worry us because we are law-abiding men against whom they are not exercised, and we know that they are not exercised unless a reasonable and proper occasion has arisen for them to be used.
Quite seriously, I venture to say to hon. Members opposite that reasonable and law abiding people will continue to go through their lives using their wirelesses, their electric irons, and their vacuum cleaners in complete ignorance that any such power of entry into their premises exists and with a serene indifference to the possibility of its exercise. It never will be exercised against reasonable and law abiding people. So far as there are people who are not reasonable and law abiding—it is for them that this provision in the law is made—their position is, I ask the Committee to say, amply protected by the provision that before anything at all can be done there must be sworn information, recourse to

the justices and a decision by the magistrates that reasonable grounds exist for exercising the powers under the Statute.
I pass from those general observations about the matter to the second proposal that when application is made to the magistrates for permission to search, the occupier of the premises should have a right to be heard as well. I am bound to say that that would be an entirely novel procedure. The object of applying to the magistrates for the purpose of granting the authority to enter the premises, is to discover evidence as to the commission of an offence which it is believed on reasonable grounds is being committed.
To give notice of that beforehand and to have the dilatory procedure of what, I suppose, would be something in the nature of a judicial hearing before a magistrate to decide whether or not there were reasonable grounds for suspecting that in particular premises reasonable evidence of an offence existed, would destroy the whole purpose and utility of the Clause. If we had to have a legal argument before the justices—I suppose a legal argument is also an argument of the facts—with or without the possibility of an appeal I do not know, it is not likely that at the end of those proceedings any evidence would be left in the premises which it was eventually proposed to search. However, there are other more technical objections. There is the difficulty of giving to one justice a power which is normally only vested in two, and there are other difficulties of that kind, but I think the existence of this power would really prevent the Clause having any utility at all against the only people in relation to whom it would ever be desired to operate it, that is to say, the person who is breaking the law and who is acting unreasonably in regard to the matter.
So far as legitimate objection to a search is concerned—perhaps somebody very ill in the house—it is inconceivable that if such an objection to search at a particular time existed, it would not be made known to the officers of the Post Office when inquiries were being made in the first instance and would not be acted upon if there was any substance in it.
For the reasonable and law-abiding person and the person who has a genuine excuse like that against having his


premises searched at a particular moment, adequate safeguards exist at present and there really is no need for the proposed judicial proceedings. So far as the other category of person is concerned, the unreasonable person who is breaking the law, to give a judicial proceeding of this kind and to interpose it between the application and the grant of a search warrant, would completely destroy the whole utility of the Clause. In those circumstances I am afraid that we are not able to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Grimston: The Attorney-General tried to ride off this matter in the first part of his speech by ridiculing it, and I was not particularly impressed by that. In the first place, it is true that many powers exist which have been granted by previous Parliaments, whether they were of the party which I represent or of our hon. Friends who are absent from the Liberal Benches, but I think it will be found that in nearly all those cases there is some reason, other than the pure enjoyment of a pleasure by someone else, for the entry.
9.30 p.m.
If we take entry by water undertakings, it may well be that something has to be done to find out whether water is leaking, or something of that kind. In the case of electricity, I can well understand that there may be dangers arising which will even cause harm to a power station if some place is not inspected and dealt with. In the present case there is no question of safety or danger to life involved. Power of entry is being taken purely because someone is not getting the full enjoyment of a wireless set. That is the reason we have objected so strongly to these powers being taken when there is no safety consideration or danger to life involved. It is merely the enjoyment of somebody else which is involved, and for which these powers are being taken. The Attorney-General says that this is a novel procedure. Indeed it is. He will find that these powers are taken in no other Bill simply because somebody else's enjoyment is being interfered with. That is an entirely new departure.
The Attorney-General has not answered the question why the person whose home has to be searched should

not have the right to be heard by the justice equally with the Postmaster-General in a case of this sort. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not met that point. If he can give me any reason why a person whose home it is proposed to search should not have the right to go before the justice at the same time as the Postmaster-General, I shall be glad to hear it. He gave no reason against that except by quoting these other cases in other Measures in which, as I say, this particular reason for entry has never before been introduced. That is the reason we have made a stand on the matter, and I hope that he will think again about it.
A great deal has been said in connection with this Bill about selfish people, but all the selfishness is not on one side. Many people complain that their rest and peace are disturbed by the users of wireless sets, but nothing is done about that. It has been argued all the time from the Government Benches that only the people who are interfering with wireless sets are the selfish ones. The Attorney-General has not convinced me why, in this particular case, in which nothing but amusement or amenity is involved, a person whose home it is proposed to search should not have the right of stating to the justice the reason why it should not be searched. For that reason, unless the Attorney-General or the Minister can promise to think again about the matter, I shall have to ask my hon. Friends to divide on this Amendment.

Sir Richard Acland: I support the Attorney-General on the issue now under discussion. It does not seem to me that the matter turns on the difference between inspecting for a matter of enjoyment or for a matter of stopping taps leaking. It seems to me to turn on whether it is really an intolerable invasion of the privacy of the home that representatives of the community should, in certain circumstances, have the right to enter and inspect. I speak with some feeling on this matter, for recently I have experienced it, and if the situation were at all as hon. Members opposite supposed, I could unfold this evening a tale of almost unimaginable horror.
Only a fortnight ago today, at 11.45 in the morning, when I was working in my study, as is my wont, I heard a strange noise on my staircase. Opening my


study door I saw two gentlemen standing on my staircase attired in black uniform. They carried curious instruments like peashooters of great length. The most horrible fact was that they were wearing peaked caps. I said to them, with such composure as I could muster, "Who are you?" They said, "We are representatives of the Metropolitan Water Board." I asked whether they had power to enter my house. They had come in without my knowledge but with the full consent of my very competent housekeeper. Yes, they replied, they had statutory power that had been given to them 101 years ago by a Conservative Government in an Act of 1847. What happens if anyone refuses them permission to come into his house, permission for which they can ask quite arbitrarily? They say that if they call when a baby is being born upstairs, they always make an appointment to come back another day.
According to the way these gentlemen talked to me—they were most courteous men—they had evidently been well trained by the Metropolitan Water Board. The fact is that these men can enter, and if entry is refused they do not go to magistrates; they just cut off one's water supply without asking anybody. That is what a Tory Government 101 years ago, allowed these officials to do. The point is that it has been going on for 101 years without anyone complaining, because Britishers are reasonable people and, strange as it may seem to hon. Members when they are in Opposition, the officials employed by the Government are reasonable, too.
May I ask your guidance, Mr. Bowles, on one point? I have put down on the Order Paper an Amendment to leave out this Clause and I am suggesting something else. While we are discussing the general matter of entry, may I say a word about my proposed new Clause, if I give an undertaking that if I am allowed to do so I will only make a formal reference?

The Deputy-Chairman: I do not think that it will be in Order to raise it on this Amendment. It may be in Order to mention it shortly on the Motion, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir R. Acland: If the point were pressed as between this right of inspection to deal with something which is a matter of public enjoyment or to stop a water leak, which is the more important? After all, if my tap is leaking, what difference does it make to my neighbour? It may slightly increase the risk, in time of drought, that he may not have enough water to have a cold bath as often as he wants it.

The Deputy-Chairman: Water must only be used as an illustration. The-hon. Member must not make a speech. about drought and water.

Sir R. Acland: I accept your Ruling, Mr. Bowles, but, after all, the hon. Gentleman opposite based his whole case on the argument that the preservation of water was something important for which these rights of inspection were required, whereas the mere enjoyment of a wireless programme is neither here nor there. I am pointing out that a leaking water-tap in my house could hardly increase the risk in a drought of my neighbour being unable to take a bath, whereas the use of a faulty electric iron might prevent my neighbour from enjoying Beethoven's Fifth Symphony. Which is the most important, water or the Fifth Symphony?

The Deputy-Chairman: I must point out to the hon. Member that it is a question of entry powers and formalities for the officer's entering. It is not a question of interference with reception. That came on the Second Reading which has been passed.

Sir R. Acland: I am quite happy about that, as I am about to conclude. The hon. Member opposite did make the point that these matters are fully justified when it is a question of preserving water. I think they are just as much justified when it is a question of the cultural enjoyment of a radio programme.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 94; Noes, 243.

Division No. 22.]
AYES
[9.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Cove, W. G.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Crossman, R H. S
Hale, Leslie


Albu, A. H.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Daggar, G.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hardy, E. A.


Attewell, H. C.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Harrison, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Deer, G.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Bacon, Miss A
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)


Balfour, A
Delargy, H. J.
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Barton, C.
Diamond, J.
Herbison, Miss M.


Battley, J. R.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Bechervaise, A. E
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hobson, C. R.


Bellenger. Rt. Hon F J
Dye, S.
Holman, P.


Benson, G
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Berry, H
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Horabin, T. L.


Beswick, F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Hoy, J.


Binns, J
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Hubbard, T.


Blackburn, A. R.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Blyton, W R.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Bottomley, A G.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.
Ewart, R.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Farthing, W. J
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Fernyhough, E
Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)


Bramall, E. A.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Follick, M.
Janner, B.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Forman, J. C.
Jay, D. P. T.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Bruce, Maj. D W. T.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Burke, W. A.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H T. N
Jenkins, R. H.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Ganley, Mrs. C S
John, W.


Carmichael, James
Gibbins, J
Johnston, Douglas


Castle, Mrs. B A
Gilzean, A
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Champion, A. J.
Glanville, J E. (Consett)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Coldrick, W
Grenfell, D. R.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Collick, P.
Grey, C. F.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Collindridge, F
Grierson, E
Keenan, W


Collins, V. J
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Kenyon, C.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)
Kinley, J.


Corlett, Dr. J,
Guy, W. H.
Kirby, B. V




Lang, G.
Oliver, G H
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Lavers, S
Orbach, M.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Levy, B. W.
Palmer, A. M. F
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Lewis, A. W. J (Upton)
Parker, J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Lindgren, G. S.
Parkin, B. T.
Thurtle, Ernest


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Tiffany, S.


Logan, D G.
Pearson, A.
Timmons, J.


Longden, F.
Peart, T. F.
Titterington, M. F.


Lyne, A. W.
Perrins, W.
Tolley, L.


McAdam, W
Popplewell, E
Turner-Samuels, M.


McEntee, V. La T
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


McGhee, H. G.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Vernon, Maj. W. F


McGovern, J
Price, M. Philips
Viant, S. P.


Mack, J. D.
Proctor, W. T.
Walkden, E.


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Pursey, Comdr. H
Watson, W. M


McLeavy, F
Randall, H. E.
Weitzman, D.


MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Ranger, J
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Rankin, J.
West, D. G


Mainwaring, W. H.
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rhodes, H.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Richards, R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W


Mann, Mrs. J
Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Wilcock, Group-Capt C A. B


Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Robens, A.
Wilkes, L.


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Wilkins, W. A.


Mellish, R. J.
Robertson, J J. (Berwick)
Wiley, F. T. (Sunderland)


Middleton, Mrs. L
Royle, C.
Williams, D. J (Neath)


Mitchison, G. R
Scollan, T.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Moody, A. S
Scott-Elliot, W.
Williams, R. W (Wigan)


Morley, R.
Sharp, Granville
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Willis, E.


Mort, D. L.
Shurmer, P.
Wise, Major F. J


Moyle, A.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Woods, G. S


Murray, J. D
Simmons, C. J.
Yates, V F.


Nally, W.
Skinnard, F W
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Zilliacus, K.


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Stubbs, A. E.



Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Sylvester, G O.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Oldfield, W. H.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.




NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
Gomme-Duncan, Col A
Nicholson, G


Baldwin, A. E.
Grimston, R. V.
Odey, G. W.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Beamish, Maj. T. V H
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.


Bennett, Sir P.
Head, Brig. A. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Birch, Nigel
Headlam, Lieut.-Co. Rt. Hon Sir C
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells)
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Bowen, R.
Hogg, Hon Q
Renton, D.


Bower, N.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Ropner, Col. L


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Howard, Hon. A.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N J
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hurd, A.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Challen, C.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Jennings, R.
Studholme, H. G.


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Kendall, W. D.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Teeling, William


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T
Thomas, J P L. (Hereford)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Lipson, D. L.
Touche, G. C.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Low, A. R. W.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H
Vane, W. M. F


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
MacAndrew, Col. Sir C
Wadsworth, G.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Walker-Smith, D.


Drayson, G B.
Maclean, F H. R. (Lancaster)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
While, Sir D. (Fareham)


Duthie, W. S.
Marlowe, A. A. H
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Erroll, F. J.
Marples, A. E.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Fletcher, W. (Bury)
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Gage, C.
Medlicott, Brigadier F.



Gammans, L. D.
Mellor, Sir J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Sir Arthur Young and


Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison. Rt Hn W. S. (Cirencester)
Brigadier Mackeson.


Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 23.]
AYES
[9.40 p.m.


Baldwin, A. E.
Grimston, R. V.
Odey, G. W.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Bennett, Sir P.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Peaks, Rt. Hon. O


Birch, Nigel
Head, Brig. A. H.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D C. (Wells)
Headlam, Lieut.-Col, Rt. Hon Sir C
Ponsonby, Col C. E.


Bowen, R
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Prior-Palmer, Brig O


Cower, N.
Hogg, Hon Q
Renton, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Ropner, Col L.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr J. G
Howard, Hon. A.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hurd, A.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Challen, C.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col G
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Conant, Maj R. J. E
Jennings, R.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Legge-Bourke, Maj E A. H
Teeling, William


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt Hon. H F. C
Lipson D. L
Touche, G. C.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col O E
Low, A. R. W.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


De la Bère, R.
Lucas, Major Sir J
Wadsworth, G.


Dodds-Parker, A. D
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Walker-Smith, D.


Dower, Col. A. V G (Penrith)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Ward, Hon G. R.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Mackeson, Brig. H R
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Drayson, G B.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
White, J B. (Canterbury)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Duthie, W. S.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Erroll, F. J.
Marples, A. E.
York, C.


Fletcher, W (Bury)
Marshall, D (Bodmin)
Young, Sir A S L. (Partick)


Gage, C.
Mellor, Sir J.



Gammans, L D
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Commander Agnew and


Glyn, Sir R.
Morrison, Rt Hn. W. S (Cirencester)
Mr. Studholme.


Gomme-Duncan, Col A.
Nicholson, G.





NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Deer, G.
Herbison, Miss M.


Albu, A. H.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Hewitson, Copt M


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V
Delargy, H. J
Hobson, C. R.


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Diamond, J
Holman, P.


Alpass, J H
Debbie, W.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Dodds, N. N.
Horabin, T. L.


Attewell, H. C.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Hoy, J


Awbery, S. S.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Hubbard, T.


Bacon, Miss A.
Dye, S.
Hudson, J. H (Ealing. W.)


Balfour, A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)


Barton, C.
Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)


Benson, G.
Evans, E (Lowestoft)
Irvine, A. J. (LiverPool)


Berry, H
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A


Beswick, F.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Janner, B


Binns, J.
Ewart, R.
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Blackburn, A. R.
Farthing, W. J.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Blyton, W R.
Fernyhough, E.
Jenkins, R. H


Bottomley, A. G.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
John, W


Bowden, Fig. Offr. H. W.
Follick, M.
Johnston, Douglas


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)
Forman, J. C.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Bramall, E. A.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Jones, J H. (Bolton)


Brook, D (Halifax)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Jones, P. Asterlay (Hitchin)


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Gibbins, J.
Keenan, W


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gibson, C W.
Kendall, W. D.


Burden, T. W.
Gilzean, A.
Kenyon, C.


Burke, W. A.
Glanville, J E. (Consett)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Grenfell, D. R.
Kinley, J.


Carmichael, James
Grey, C. F.
Kirby, B. V


Champion, A. J.
Grierson, E.
Lang, G.


Coldrick, W.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Lavers, S.


Collick, P.
Griffiths, Rt Hon. J (Llanelly)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Collindridge, F.
Griffiths, W D. (Moss Side)
Levy, B. W.


Collins, V. J.
Guy, W. H.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr, G
Hale, Leslie
Lindgren, G. S.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hall, Rt Hon Glenvil
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M


Grossman, R. H. S
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Logan, D. G.


Cullen, Mm. A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Longden, F.


Daggar, G.
Hardy, E. A.
Lyne, A. W.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
McAdam, W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)
McEntee, V. La T.







McGhee, H. G.
Popplewell, E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


McGovern, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Mack, J. D.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Thorneycroft, Harry ('Clayton)


McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Price. M Philips
Thurtle, Ernest


MaLeavy, F
Proctor, W T.
Tiffany, S.


MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Pursey, Comdr. H.
Timmons, J.


Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Randall, H. E.
Titterington, M. F.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Ranger, J.
Tolley, L.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rankin, J.
Turner-Samuels, M


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
Usborne, Henry


Mann, Mrs. J.
Rhodes, H.
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Manning, Mrs. L (Epping)
Richards, R.
Viant, S P.


Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Ridealgh, Mrs. M
Walkden, E.


Mellish, R. J.
Robens, A.
Watson, W. M


Middleton, Mrs. L.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)
Weitzman, D.


Mitchison, G. R.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Moody, A. S.
Royle, C
West, D. G.


Morley, R.
Scollan, T.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Scott-Elliott, W
While, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Mort, D. L.
Segal, Dr. S.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Moyle, A.
Shackleton, E. A. A.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Murray, J. D
Sharp, Granville
Wilkes, L.


Nally, W
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Wilkins, W. A.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Shurmer, P.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Williams, D. J. (Heath)


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Simmons, C. J.
Williams, J. L (Kelvingrove)


Oldfield, W. H.
Skinnard, F. W.
Williams, R. W (Wigan)


Oliver, G. H.
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Williams, W. R (Heston)


Orbach, M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Willis, E.


Paling, Rt. Hon Wilfred (Wentworth)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wise, Major F. J


Palmer, A. M. F.
Stross, Dr B.
Woods, G. S.


Parker, J.
Stubbs, A. E.
Yates, V. F.


Parkin, B. T.
Swingler, S.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Sylvester, G. O.
Zilliacus, K.


Pearson, A
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)



Peart, T. F
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Perrins, W.
Thomas D E (Aberdare)
Mr. Snow and Mr. George Wallace.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 16, line 9, at the end, to add:
'(5) If any person who, in compliance with any of the foregoing provisions of this Act or with a warrant issued thereunder, is admitted into any premises discloses to any person any information obtained by him there with regard to any manufacturing process or trade secret, he shall, unless such disclosure was made in the performance of his duty, be liable in respect of each offence—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or to both such fine and such imprisonment."
This Amendment is common form in many Acts of Parliament, and the reason for moving it is that there will be occasions when industrial premises are searched for interference, when it may well be that the searchers will come into possession of trade secrets. The industry should be protected against any misuse of those secrets, and it is to that end that this Amendment is directed.

The Attorney-General: I said that we would accept any Amendment which would reasonably improve the Bill. We think that this one would, but not in its present form. There are drafting points

about it, and, if the hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw it, we will put down on Report stage. a new Subsection to the same effect.

Mr. Grimston: I thank the learned Attorney-General, and, in view of that undertaking to produce the necessary words on Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 15 to 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL

Considered in Committee. [Progress, 18th November.]

[Mr. BOWLES in the Chair]

CLAUSE 18.—(Interpretation.)

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 18, line 23, to leave out from "person," to "post," and to insert
shall be served by registered.
The object of this Amendment is that notice shall have to be served by registered post. This provision appears in most Acts where a notice has to be served by post. It is a visual safeguard to the addressee, and I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate the point. I hope the Postmaster-General will accept it.

The Attorney-General: I must confess that we do not like this Amendment.
It would prevent any notice from being served personally, or being left at any premises by the giver of the notice without the intervention of the post, except where there was some express condition elsewhere in the Bill permitting that to be done. Moreover, it would, I think. sometimes operate against the ordinary members of the public who wanted to serve the notice, by compelling them to serve it by registered post, rather than by leaving them free to serve it in that way if that was the mode of service they chose. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to press this aspect of the matter, we would certainly consider it on the Report stage, while leaving it possible to serve notices in other ways than by post, that is, by serving them direct on the person or premises. If it is thought that where a notice is served by post there should be an express provision in the Statute saying that it must be served by registered post, we will give consideration to that on Report, if the hon. Member will withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. Grimston: That really meets our point. As the Attorney-General has undertaken that between now and the Report stage he will consider inserting words to the effect that where the post is used, it shall be by registered post, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Cost of Apparatus.)

When interference with wireless telegraphy is being caused by any domestic appliance or appliances, no notice under Section eleven of this Act shall be served on the owner or on the person responsible for the apparatus unless it is shown how that person can comply with the terms of the notice at a cost to himself not exceeding two shillings and six pence in respect of each domestic appliance to which the notice applies—[Sir R. Acland.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Sir R. Acland: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
When we get the Opposition, with all the resources they have for drafting, submitting Clauses which cannot be

accepted because they are not adequately drafted, I hope an ordinary Member will be excused if a Clause submitted by him probably needs redrafting, even if the principle is accepted. The principle behind this Clause is that ordinary members of the public shall not be compelled to spend too much money on silencing their vacuum cleaners and electric irons. I am a little alarmed to know that, at the moment, in order to make a vacuum cleaner or iron harmless to a neighbour's wireless, costs as much as 9s. 6d.
On an earlier Clause I suggested—it may have been out of Order at that time, but I want to repeat the suggestion now—that if the Government wish to go into the business in a big way and really mean to clear up this crackling and popping which we hear on wireless sets, it would not be at all unreasonable to suppose that we are going to need at least 100,000 of these suppressors. I am sure that if the Government placed an order with the trade for such a number the price could be about 2s. 6d. Then it seems to me that the Government servants, the servants of the community, whose job it is to inspect the appliances causing the disturbances, could quite easily carry these suppressors around with them and fit them so that there would be no additional charge to the citizens for the fitting. Half-a-crown seems to me a much more reasonable sum and, by dynamic administration, the Post Office could see that everything necessary was done.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Wilfred Paling): We cannot accept this new Clause, which would be too rigid and would probably prevent us from dealing with cases involving the safety of life. Half a crown sounds very attractive, but on Second Reading and in the last Committee Debate I said that in many cases these things were cheap but that we hoped they would be cheaper. To put on a restriction of this sort would damage the Bill far too much, and would restrict us far too much. With regard to the question of getting the suppressors in sufficient quantities. I would utter the warning which I uttered before, namely, that we do not want people to run and buy them by the thousand or the million. This has gone on fairly comfortably up to the present, and we do not think there is any need to rush. It will go on largely as it has done before, with our people attend-


ing to the complaints, tracking down the interference, and applying the remedy in a good many cases. We think that is the best way of conducting the business. For those reasons, I hope my hon. Friend will not press the new Clause.

Mr. Grimston: With the intent of this Clause we are in sympathy, but it may well be that the drafting is not what is required. It seems to us hard that persons who own an electric iron or a Hoover which they have bought legitimately, should suddenly find that they have to spend another 10s. or more in order to continue to use it. Could the Postmaster-General look at the matter to see whether the Post Office in certain cases could fit these things at their expense, or by some means transfer the cost to the person for whose benefit they are being fitted, namely, the user of the reception set? I have learned that some of the worst interferers are the overhead high-power transmission cables. Many people living near them cannot hear a thing. It costs 30s. to fit a suppressor to every insulator, and that gives an in dication of the problem. This matter obviously needs looking at, so I hope the Postmaster-General will consider the two points I have made.
Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," pvt, and negatived.

SCHEDULE.—(Provisions as to the Appeal Tribunal.)

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 20, line 6, to leave out paragraph 4.
This paragraph gives power to the tribunal to award costs or expenses and to order a sum to be paid to the Postmaster-General. We should like to have an explanation why this power is taken. It does not seem to us that a person who appeals against one of these notices should have any cost falling upon him. I move the Amendment in order to ask for an explanation from the Postmaster-General.

The Attorney-General: I am not sure whether the hon. Member has appreciated that the omission of paragraph 4 as proposed by his Amendment would still leave the tribunal free to award costs. What paragraph 4 is designed to do is to enable the tribunal to order a sum to be paid to the Postmaster-General in respect, not of his costs, but of the costs of the tribunal.
We thought that there might be cases in which, perhaps, a frivolous appeal might be made, perhaps an appeal thought out in circumstances which the tribunal thought unjustified, and in which the tribunal might think it proper to award a sum which would include some part of the expenses of the sitting of the tribunal, and so forth. We do not take a very strong view about this, and if there is any objection to it we are quite prepared to accept the Amendment, subject to the explanation I have given as to the general position.

Mr. Grimston: I wanted an explanation. That was the object of moving this Amendment. If the paragraph is designed merely as a protection against purely frivolous appeals, I think there may be some reason for it. We can, perhaps, think about it between now and Report stage, and if on further thought we think we should like to make the Amendment, I hope that the Attorney-General will be disposed to accept an Amendment then. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 29.]

CENSUS OF DISTRIBUTION

10.3 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 24th September, 1948, entitled the Census of Distribution (1950) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 2176), a copy of which was presented on 24th September, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled.
I apologise for the fog tonight, but it is not my fault. Neither was it my fault when, on a previous occasion, on 24th November, when certain of my hon. Friends and I tried to raise this matter, we were counted out because the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Parkin) called attention to the fact that there was not a quorum of the House present. I do not want to comment on the fact that if, perhaps, the hon. Member for Stroud had realised what an important matter this is for the small traders of the country, he might not have taken that action.
I do not want to repeat the speech I made last Wednesday, but I feel that in justice to the case it is necessary for me to draw attention to the main arguments that I then tried to put forward. In the first place, I want to make it clear that we are not attacking the Act under which this order has been made. It would not be possible for us so to do; but we are claiming that the year 1950 is not the year in which to hold a census of distribution. When the order was in draft, various representations were made by the traders' associations throughout the country to the Board of Trade, and they put forward very good reasons why 1950 was an unsuitable year. Although the order was then only in draft, their representations were not met and were ignored.
The reasons why we are asking for postponement of the order is, in the first place, because there is a shortage of consumer goods; secondly, because of the shortage of consumer goods, there must of necessity be a continuation of rationing in 1950. A third reason is that obviously at that time, or in the year 1949 for which the figures are being compiled, we shall see a continuance of Purchase Tax which must create sales resistance. People undoubtedly will be deterred from buying goods which they would otherwise buy if it were not for the high rate of Purchase Tax placed upon certain goods.
Then, again, the retailers who are responsible for stocking some of these goods will not stock them because they have to pay the Purchase Tax when they take delivery of the goods from the wholesalers. That means that the stocks of retailers will be very small indeed, for the reason that they do not want to carry large stocks with a high Purchase Tax on them when they are hoping that the Purchase Tax will sooner or later be removed. A further reason is that there are food and clothing subsidies in existence and, indeed. Marshall Aid, which must affect the normal laws of supply and demand.
What is the reason for this particular order? Is it to help the traders of the country? If it is, let us hear about it. If the Government have some other ideas about the need for a census to be taken in 1949 or 1950, let them tell us about it. I would only say that the cost of

this census is to be about one million pounds, which means that unless some useful purpose is to be served by the census there will be a considerable waste of money and manpower.
Many small traders are in favour of the principle of holding a census and many are against, but they are all agreed, whether they are in favour of the principle of the census or against it, that 1950 is not the proper year. With these few words, I would urge the Secretary for Overseas Trade, who is to reply, to reconsider this matter and say, "Well, at any rate, we will defer it until 1952."

10.10 p.m.

Mr. Baker White: I beg to second the Motion.
This order reminds us of a very important thing, which is very often forgotten: those who design forms and work out returns rarely, if ever, have to fill them up; they are not at the receiving end and do not know the burden placed upon traders and industrialists. Let me make my own position quite clear. I have no direct interest in any wholesale, retail, or industrial establishment of any sort or kind; but I am an industrial economist and an industrial statistician, and in that profession under normal circumstances I should welcome a census of production because, quite frankly, it provides the sort of information which, in turn. provides my means of livelihood.
If a census of production is, as laid down in this order, conducted in 1949 it will be largely valueless, and will also place an intolerable burden of extra work on traders and industrialists. A census of production is of value only when taken in a normal year, but there is no indication that 1949 will be any more normal than 1948, 1947, 1946 or 1945. Food will still be rationed, and so will clothing; supplies of certain materials, particularly raw materials, used by industry will be rationed; subsidies will still be operating; and, as my hon. Friend has already pointed out, Purchase Tax will still be creating an unreal relation between supply and demand. By 1949 industry will not have completed its post-war reorganisation; it will not have completed its new layout of plant, its tooling, and installation of new machinery provided for under the 1948 capital


expenditure scheme. None of those things will be completed. For these reasons a census of production in 1949 will be conducted under unreal conditions, and will produce unreal results.
There is one final point I wish to make. Much of this information is already in the possession of the Government. If the Secretary for Overseas Trade looks at the Schedule to the Act, he will see that a great deal of the information asked for is already being supplied. Manufacturing industries have to make a monthly return of persons employed, the hours worked, the wages paid, and the nature of the employment; the amount of power used is already known; the stocks they hold are, in many cases, already known; the articles they acquire, particularly raw materials, are already known; all sales of rationed goods must be returned at least every quarter; the consumption of rationed material has to be returned; the quantities imported and exported have to be returned, as does the allocation of raw materials——

Mr. Speaker: This would have been in Order during the Debate on the Second Reading of the Act, but it is not in Order now.

Mr. Baker White: I will conclude by saying that the effect of this order will be to produce unreal and inaccurate figures which will be no good to anybody, and to place an intolerable burden of paper and form-filling on industry, commerce and business at a time when they should be going all-out in the production drive.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Perhaps the first thing I ought to do is to congratulate the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) on having been able to marshal his troops so well tonight, but I would remind him that, in general, Prayers are very much more effective when they are not uttered in a crowd. While I congratulate the hon. Member on having marshalled his troops, I cannot congratulate him on the argument he used in support of his Prayer. I should not have intervened but for the fact that I was the first person to raise in the House this issue of a census of distribution. Without going into the general arguments, it is quite clear that we all know every ton of coal produced,

every bag of potatoes, every bushel of wheat and so on, and that it is necessary, therefore, to know what the distributive trade, which is the largest of all the trades in the land, are doing. The first thing we were told was that we cannot have this census because there is a shortage of consumer goods. How long do hon. Members think that is likely to last?

Hon. Members: For years.

Mr. Speaker: We are considering the short point as to whether 1950 is the right year or not, and we cannot discuss the whole subject which was debated on the Second Reading of the Act.

Mr. Rhys Davies: It is because of the shortage of goods and rationing that it is very much easier to take the census. There is nothing better than that the people should have a general picture of the distributive trade in 1950. I cannot understand the argument against having this census because of the Purchase Tax. When is it thought that the Purchase Tax will come off? No one is able to say when the Purchase Tax will go. Finally, we are told that we cannot have the census in 1950 because the stocks will be very low, but if we want to take a census of anything, it is very much easier to do it when the stocks are low, and Members opposite who are in business know that to be true.

Colonel Dower (Penrith and Cocker-mouth): Will the hon. Member say what is the good of the census?

Mr. Rhys Davies: For the same reason that Members opposite are very keen to have a census on absenteeism in the coalmines. They want statistics, decimal points and vulgar fractions about everything that will suit them, and I want the same thing to apply in regard to the distributive trade.

10.18 p.m.

Colonel Ropner: I must confess that I found the greatest difficulty in following the argument of the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. Rhys Davies). If I followed him correctly, he was saying that just because circumstances will be exceptional for the next year, that is the time to take a census. We should hope that if the Government decide to spend one million pounds in taking a census, it would be taken in a year that approaches some


degree of normality. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) said that, as far as he knew, there were a number of small traders in favour of a census being taken at some time, but I venture to intervene for only a short time in this Debate because in my constituency I can find no small trader who thinks that any useful information will come from this census even in normal times. My hon. Friend has reminded the House that because of the shortage of goods leading to rationing and because of the incidence of Purchase Tax and subsidies on food and clothing, the machinery of distribution at present, and certainly for next year, is largely dislocated and bears no relation to the state to which it might conform in normal times.
The machinery of distribution is highly complex. Any one of the disturbing factors to which I have referred would be sufficient in itself to make the census comparatively useless, but taken together no sort of information of any value will be derived by the Government at all. It has taken years even decades, for the machinery of distribution, by trial and error, to conform now to streamlined efficiency: I am quite sure 1949 is the wrong year for the census to be taken. Have the Government consulted those bodies which can give an authoritative opinion on this matter? I hope they have consulted chambers of trade and the organisations of retail distributors. Inevitably there will be forms to be filled in and more snoopers and more interference in the retail and distributive trade. My own view is that it will be very nearly useless to have a census of this sort at all. I hope the Government will do what we cannot suggest by way of a Prayer, and that is postpone this Order until some more opportune time.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley (Secretary for Overseas Trade): I join in the sentiment expressed by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Taylor) that it was a pity that a discussion did not take place last week. However, he must accept the main responsibility for his failure to see that sufficient Members were not in the House when the discussion began.

Captain Crookshank: Utter nonsense.

Sir Peter Macdonald: On a point of Order. May I point out that there were sufficient Members in the House of Commons when the Debate was begun? They were called out and they obstructed other Members who were trying to come in.

Mr. Bottomley: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) said it was nonsense. I agree entirely with that remark as applied to the last observation.

Captain Crookshank: I never said "nonsense" at all in that respect. I was referring to the speech of the Secretary for Overseas Trade when I made that remark.

Mr. Speaker: With regard to the point of Order. If any obstuction took place it should have been reported to me. It was not reported to me at the time.

Mr. Bottomley: I was referring to the nonsense talked by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir P. Macdonald). There seem to be two views about this matter on the Opposition Benches. The hon. Member for Eastbourne said there was no disagreement about the need for the census of distribution.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: No.

Mr. Bottomley: If there is disagreement, I will say right away——

Mr. Taylor: I never said anything of the sort. I said I was not attacking the Act under which the order was made because it would not be possible for rue to do so, as Mr. Speaker would not allow it. That is all I said.

Mr. Bottomley: In 1945, when the President of the Board of Trade belonged to the party opposite, he made the suggestion that there should be a census of distribution. As a result of a unanimous recommendation by a Committee set up by the then President, the Government eventually passed an Act which brings about the need for the census of distribution. If the Opposition are now going back on that. it is a different matter altogether from what it was then.

Mr. Speaker: Views on a census of distribution are not in Order now. The only question is whether 1950 is the right year or not.

Mr. Bottomley: I was trying to point out that as a result of an Act of Parliament the Government were compelled to consider this census, and whether it be 1950 or another year, I was trying to imply that there had been agreement on the matter. I still think so. The suggestion that there should be an opportunity to annul the order is impossible for the following reasons. First of all, we took a preliminary or pilot census with a view to helping traders to understand the position and to prepare the instructions and the forms necessary to get the information as simply and as clearly as possible. In doing that we satisfied about 230 trade organisations. If we ignore that, we shall be going back on all the very fine work done by the advisory committee who prepared the forms.
It has been said that there has not been a clear statement about the census. I think there has been. First, a Command Paper was issued in March, 1946, giving all the reasons why the census should be taken. Early this year printed leaflets and circulars were sent to the towns where the pilot census was to be taken and the fullest information was given to everybody in order to let it be seen how the machine would work. In addition, the different trade organisations received all this information. It is, therefore, fair to say that the whole of the productive and distributive industry was aware of what was going to take place. We also held meetings up and down the country where the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade explained the purpose of the census.
It has been said that we ought not to take the census now because 1949 cannot be a normal year. What is a normal year? Some hon. Members would like to think of 1938 as a normal year, but I do not think we can ever look back in the sense of normality as it applied in that year, for the obvious reason that our economic position is much different from what it was then. What we want to know are the facts now and not at some hypothetical normal year in the future. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] Because if we are to have the fullest possible information about the distributive trade, it

is necessary to get the details as soon as possible. The figures we have about the distributive trade are indeed meagre. Suppose I were to accept the suggestion that we should wait until rationing and controls disappear. That would mean that we should start off with the most scanty information at a time when we wanted the fullest possible knowledge in order to make our national economy work as completely as it should. [An HON. MEMBER: "What does that mean?"] It means that without this knowledge, we shall not have the required facts when our economic position comes to be tested.
Other countries, concerning which hon. Members opposite claim that they are more advanced than this country, have found it essential to have such a census. The United States does it, and so do Australia, Canada and South Africa: These countries have found it the most valuable and practical means of getting the information required. In the production side of industry, we know that in manufacturing and mining and industries of that character we have over seven million people employed; in fishing and agriculture, there are well over one million employed; but we have no idea how the two million people in the distributive trades are employed.
We do not know, for instance, how many there are employed in grocers' shops or how many are in chemists' shops. We certainly must have fuller details about distribution and consumption. and about what happens to the goods. At the moment, after the goods leave the factories and go into the shops, there is little or no information about what stocks are held. When goods are imported, after they have left the warehouses no further check of any kind is kept. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I can only repeat that one who, I am sure, will be accepted as having been an excellent President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton), expressed the same views as I am ex-. pressing now, with the general support of the House.
We want to know what is going to be the position. If we get information on distribution earlier rather than later, it means that we can use that census as the basis for the next five years. If we can get that information soon—I will not


say when, but the sooner the better—we shall be able to check what progress has been made.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should not direct his remarks on this Motion to the census of distribution itself, which is already in an Act of Parliament. He should direct them to the question whether 1949 is the right year to be laid down, which means a census in 1950.

Mr. Bottomley: If we are to have a census of distribution we ought to have it at once in order to enable us to help those who need this help. The traders themselves, as far back as 1936, thought this was necessary.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that as far back as 1936, the traders were demanding an order applying to 1950? I only want to know what the hon. Gentleman means?

Mr. Bottomley: In 1936 a group of traders considered this matter and said that a census of distribution was a necessary thing.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker; if the hon. Gentleman is going to say that as long ago as 1936 traders were supporting a census of distribution, I understood that you had ruled that out of Order.

Mr. Speaker: I am doing my best to keep the Debate to the years 1949–50.

Mr. Bottomley: It is for that reason that I want a census of distribution to be held as soon as possible. I cannot accept the postponement suggested by the hon. Member for Eastbourne, and I hardly think that the Prayer meets the reasons he put forward.

10.35 p.m.

Mr. Challen: I took some part in the proceedings while I was on the Committee on this Bill upstairs and I have nothing whatever to say against the principle of the Bill. But on the particular question of having this census now, may I make, first, a point on the principle, and secondly, a point on the facts? A week ago the Minister of Labour, in answering a Question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Renfrew, Eastern (Major Lloyd)

with regard to absenteeism in industry, said:
The collection of statistics of absenteeism would involve the maintenance by a considerable number of firms of running records showing the extent of and reasons for absence for individual workers. In present circumstances, I do not feel justified in requiring employers to undertake this additional burden, nor in recruiting additional staff to summarise the returns."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1054.]
What have we got? I have in my hand a form given to me by a manufacturer containing hundreds of questions which have been circulated in industry, obviously involving the employment of civil servants and people in industry on this spurious and ridiculous task. I turn to one page and I see:
Question 36. Materials—hair, human.
Question 37. Other animals.

Mr. Speaker: I think the Act of Parliament has decided these questions already. That has nothing to do with the year 1949.

Mr. Challen: I do not want to get out of Order, but I am trying to point out that the employment of personnel in Government Departments and industry to answer these ridiculous questions at this particular time is out of Order. I go over the page and find:
Question 86. Wigs and similar manufactures of hair—
for theatrical purposes,
for legal purposes.
That is what our manufacturers and business men have to answer under this order. I do not want to say a word more. I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for having allowed me to say what I have said. This order is thoroughly absurd and ought to be annulled.

Mr. Bottomley: May I tell the hon. Member that he is referring to the census of production form and not the census of distribution.

10.40 p.m.

Colonel Dower: Very briefly I would like to say that I listened very carefully to what the Parliamentary Secretary had to say. But though I listened with all earnestness, I must say that the hon. Gentleman put forward no argument. And I say, with all seriousness, even if in doing so I impart a serious note to the Debate, that the arguments which he put forward will


not, I think, sufficiently justify the extra burden and disturbance which will be caused to people who at present are very harassed indeed. That is the first point that I would like to make, and I hope I shall have the support of hon. Members opposite as well as the support of hon. Members on my own side.
The other thing I do most seriously say is that I am sure that the bulk of the distributive trades are not in favour of this census being taken now. There has been a unanimous message sent out by all the Chambers of Trade, and most hon. Members have had telegrams. Apart from that, a deputation went to see the President of the Board of Trade and put forward their case very strongly on why this census should not be taken until times are a little more easy, so that it would be less difficult for them to devote the time needed to furnish the. information.
I am sorry to say—and I hope that I shall be corrected if I have been wrongly informed—that I am told that they have not had a considered reply from the President of the Board of Trade on this very important question. All that the President of the Board of Trade has done in return, after acknowledging their letter, was in fact, to bring in this order; and to bring it in for the very year when they took exception to this being done. I appeal to the President of the Board of Trade to see if he cannot put off this order for a year or two. These people really are terribly harassed. I know that we can laugh and joke over forms; but these people are under-staffed. They have all the difficulties in the world with which to contend. Why should there be an addition to those difficulties, unless it is absolutely necessary for the census to be taken now and it is intended in some way to help the traders now?

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Quintin Hogg: I think, Mr. Speaker, that we have somehow got into a fog here, and I must express, at any rate, my own disappointment that the President of the Board of Trade could not be here for this Debate. If he had been here, I cannot help thinking that he would have sensed, what I believe must have been the feeling of others besides hon. Members of my own party, that the Secretary for Overseas Trade has not really done justice to the case which

was put forward. He even did not seem to understand the nature of the case he was arguing. We really are not concerned with the arguments which the hon. Gentleman presented. They were designed, as I think you saw, Mr. Speaker. to prove a point which was out of Order in this discussion. What we are concerned with is whether this is an appropriate year in which to launch a census of distribution.
On that point I must say that I started with a fairly open mind. I was influenced, of course, by the fact that the Chamber of Trade in my own constituency had approached me with a view' to my supporting this Prayer. But I do, not think it is unreasonable to be influenced by the fact that the appropriate organisation of those who are to perform a duty, are objecting to the introduction of that duty at this time. I came here willing to listen to any argument for this order which the hon. Gentleman or anyone answering the Debate could advance. But I must say that I have heard none. What reason is there for the Government in this case to disregard the urgent representations of the organisation most affected by this order? Would they have done so in the case of any other trade union or trade organisation affected? I believe not. I believe that their action in deciding against those who are affected by this order is one which really strikes at the roots of the good relationship between the Government and the various negotiating organisations.
As my hon. Friend below the Gangway has asked, is this the time, or is next year the time, when traders should be subjected to burdens which, among other things, will put upon them all kinds of duties, involving additional expense and trouble? Furthermore, we must ask ourselves whether, in asking the traders of this country to provide this information at their own expense, we are not placing too much upon them; whether, having this information this year rather than in a future year is of such vital importance that there can be justification for the expense incurred by those who have to supply the information. I must say that I did not find myself impressed, or persuaded, by the arguments put forward by the Secretary for Overseas Trade. I cannot understand why, if this census is postponed, the purpose of the pilot


census would have been lost. That is one point. Another is that I was unimpressed with the analogy between this country and the United States and Australia, and Canada, and I was not impressed by the declaration of traders as long ago as 1936, because I may reasonably suppose that that has no relation to 1950.
If we ignore these particular arguments, I am afraid that I do not know what is left of the Secretary's speech apart from the sally which he made, after it was finished, against my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Challen) and the substance of which was that my hon. Friend was talking of the wrong census. That may be a good argument against my hon. Friend, but it must be agreed that it can hardly meet the objections of the various chambers of trade which have been put to the House tonight. The Government have, on more than one occasion, said that they will give in to reason, but the reason here is all on one side Cannot one responsible hon. Member on the opposite Benches say that this Debate will be taken into account and that this order will be withdrawn, or reconsidered? Or perhaps this Debate could be adjourned?
I notice that there are no responsible hon. Members opposite and, by that, of course, I mean Members of the Government who are responsible for answering for the Parliamentary Secretary. It is a little difficult for this House, after it has had a Debate, serious in essence if not always in tone, on a vital matter, which, it must be admitted, has carried the House all in one direction, if no one has the responsibility to get up and say that account will be taken of the many telling arguments which have been adduced. If no responsible Member of the Government says that this matter will be considered further, I do hope that my hon. Friends will carry this Question to a Division so that supporters of the Government may, perhaps, be brought to account by reason of dictate of mind if not by reason of the party Whip.
There has been nothing in this Debate which could move hon. Gentlemen or hon. Ladies opposite to conscientious reasons for opposing this Prayer. I hope that very wide notice will be taken in the country of what has occurred this

evening in order that in each constituency these organisations which will be affected by this arbitary conduct on the part of the Administration will be able to go to their own Member and ask how he or she voted on this occasion.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley) rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

10.51 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: Having heard the Debate I should have thought that a responsible Minister would reply to it. I see that there is only one Cabinet Minister present, the Minister of Labour. I should have thought that he was particularly interested in the subject. After all such a census must obviously impose a certain strain on the manpower of the people concerned, and I should have thought that his job was to see that the manpower and the womanpower of this country were employed to the best possible effect in these difficult times.
As he is present, and I presume he is present because he thought he ought to be here—unlike other Cabinet Ministers, unless they have been lost in the fog, which is not surprising—I should have thought that he would have been very glad to intervene to justify the use of manpower in the distributive trades for drawing up a census, which my hon. Friend has tried to argue, and I think successfully, is quite unnecessary as early as 1950. That year which is set down in the order, would not give a reasonable picture of the situation, owing to shortages, and the rest of it, to which the Parliamentary Secretary has already referred.
As I understand him, the Parliamentary Secretary said it would be a good time to do it because stocks would be low. It seems to me that that is a poor time to do it. It should be done when stocks are at a general reasonable average, and 1950, when stocks are low is not a good period to choose. As a matter of fact, as hon. Gentlemen opposite know perfectly well this has been very much resented by the people who are concerned and I am certain that he will have had representations from that great and very


widely distributed authority, the National Chamber of Trade against this proposal.

Mr. Thurtle: On a point of Order. May I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in discussing this matter on the Motion, "That the Question be now put," is not entitled to go into the merits of the case.

Hon. Members: He is not.

Captain Crookshank: That Motion is not discussable. Nothing that I could do could ever bring discussion of it within the bounds of Order. The hon. Gentleman must have been inattentive at the appropriate moment. The question I am discussing is whether 1950 is the appropriate year in which to take a census of distribution. While I originally had no intention of taking part in this Debate, I have been struck by the arguments put by my hon. Friends to which no reply has been given. In view of the speeches which have been made I think the Minister of Labour, who is the only Cabinet Minister present, the only Minister who can speak with authority on this matter, should take account of what has been said.
I should have thought that this was a matter of sufficient importance for the Leader of the House to be here, but he never does come here after Question Time. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Leader of the Opposition ought to be here."] After all, as hon. Members know, today is the birthday of the Leader of the Opposition. I merely made a statement of fact, and I am perfectly certain myself that the hon. Member who interrupted does not attend the House on his birthday. If he likes to tell me the date of his birthday, I shall wish him many happy returns, but not many happy returns to this House after the General Election.
I am sorry I have been led away by an hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. Of course, we cannot discuss the relevancy of the Act with which we, generally speaking, agreed. The whole point at issue here is what is the right time to take the census. Why the hon. Gentleman should have chosen 1950 when, as

far as I know, he thinks there is going to be a General Election passes my comprehension. All the facts given and all the arguments put, not only in the House, but from outside, to my hon. Friends, and I am sure to hon. Gentlemen opposite, show that 1950 is not a reasonable year. I suggest to the Government that they should drop the order altogether until times are more normal. No one is more forthcoming on these matters than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has himself said that we are living in difficult times, that things are not quite what they might be, that Marshall Aid and all the rest of it, which I cannot go into now, distort our general economy. Even the "Board of Trade Journal" pointed out that but for Marshall Aid, we would have had 1,500,000 unemployed.
If the economy of the country is distorted, so the whole question of the census of distribution becomes itself out of line. I do suggest now that the Minister of Labour should take his courage in his hands, having heard the arguments, and answer the Debate. I see the Home Secretary has arrived. Now, of course, the whole situation has changed. The Minister of Labour is absolved, the Deputy-Leader of the House has arrived, but the unfortunate part is that I would be out of Order if I repeated my speech.[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] It would be quite out of Order for me to repeat it. I would, however, appeal to the Minister of Labour to consult with the Home Secretary and, having heard the arguments used, tell him that there case for continuing this order, that 1950 is not the right year, that the economy of the country is distorted, and that our case is unanswerable. I hope even now we may get some remission from the Government of this duty they are imposing on the whole of the distributive trade.

Mr. Whiteley: Mr. Whiteley rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 215; Noes, 91.

Division No. 24.]
AYES
[11.0 p.m.


Acland, Sir Richard
Haire, John E (Wycombe)
Parkin, B T.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Hale, Leslie
Paton, J (Norwich)


Albu, A. H.
Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R
Pearson, A


Allen, A C. (Bosworth)
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Perrins, W.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Hardy, E. A
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Awbery, S. S.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Bacon, Miss A
Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Price, M. Philips


Barton, C.
Herbison, Miss M.
Proctor, W. T.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pursey, Comdr. H


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Hobson, C R.
Randall, H. E.


Benson, G.
Holman, P.
Ranger, J


Berry, H.
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Rankin, J.


Blyton, W R.
Horabin, T. L.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Bottomley, A. G.
Hoy, J.
Rhodes, H.


Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.
Hubbard, T.
Richards, R


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exth'ge)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W)
Robens, A.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Bramall, E. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G A
Royle, C.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Janner, B.
Scollan, T.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Segal, Dr. S


Burden, T. W.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Shackleton, E. A A


Burke, W. A.
Jenkins, R. H
Sharp, Granvitte


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
John, W
Shurmer, P.


Champion, A. J.
Johnston, Douglas
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Coldrick, W.
Jones. D. T. (Hartlepools)
Simmons, C. J.


Collick, P.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Skeffington, A. M


Collindridge, F.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Collins, V J
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Skinnard, F. W.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Keenan, W
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Cook, T. F.
Kenyon, C
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E
Snow, J. W.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Kinley, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Crossman, R. H S
Lang, G.
Stubbs, A. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A
Lavers, S.
Swingler, S.


Daggar, G.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Sylvester, G O.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Davies, R J. (Westhoughton)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Taylor, R. J, (Morpeth)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Deer, G.
Logan, D. G
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Longden, F.
Thomas, I. O (Wrekin)


Delargy, H. J.
Lyne, A. W
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Diamond, J
McGhee, H. G
Thurtle, Ernest


Dobbie, W.
Mack, J. D.
Tiffany, S


Dodds, N, N.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Timmons. J


Dumpleton, C. W.
McLeavy, F
Tolley, L.


Dye, S.
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Usborne, Henry


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
Mallalieu, E L. (Brigg)
Wallace, G D. (Chislehurst)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Mallalieu, J P W. (Huddersfield)
Watson, W M.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
Mann Mrs J.
Weitzman, D.


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
West, D. G


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mellish, R J.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Ewart, R.
Middleton, Mrs, L.
White, H (Derbyrhire, N.E)


Farthing, W. J.
Millington, Wing-Comdr E R
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W


Fernyhough, E.
Mitchison, G R
Wilcock, Group-capt. C A. B


Fletcher, E. G M. (Islington, E.)
Monslow, W
Wilkes, L.


Follick, M.
Moody, A. S
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Forman, J. C.
Morley, R.
Williams, D J (Neath)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mort, D L.
Williams, R. W (Wigan)


Ganley, Mrs. C S.
Moyle, A.
Williams, W R (Heston)


Gibbins, J.
Murray, J D
Willis, E.


Gibson, C W
Nally, W
Wise, Major F. J


Gilzean, A.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Woods, G. S


Glanville, J E. (Consett)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Yates, V. F.


Grey, C. F.
Noel-Baker, Capt F. E. (Brentford)
Younger, Hon Kenneth


Grierson, E.
O'Brien, T.
Zilliacus, K


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Oliver, G. H.



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Orbach, M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Palmer, A. M. F
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.


Guy, W. H.
Parker, J.





NOES


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
Birch, Nigel
Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.


Baldwin, A. E.
Boles, Lt.-Col. D, C. (Wells)
Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.


Barlow, Sir J.
Bowen, R.
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H
Bower, N.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.




Challen, C.
Hollis, M. C.
Nicholson, G


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Odey, G. W.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hurbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U.(Ludlow)
Hurd, A.
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. 0


Davidson, Viscountess
Jennings, R.
Renton, D.


De la Bere, R.
Keeling, E H.
Ropner, Col. L.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kendall, W. D.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Logge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Shepherd, W S. (Bucklow)


Drayson, G. B.
Low, A. R. W.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Drewe, C.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Duthie, W. S.
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wigh')
Teeling, William


Erroll, F. J.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Gage, C.
MeKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Touche, G. C.


Gammans, L D
Maclean, F. H R. (Lancaster)
Wadsworth, G


Glyn, Sir R.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Gomme-Duncan, Col A.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Grimston, R V.
Marlowe, A A. H
White, Sir D (Fareham)


Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Marples, A. E.
While, J. B (Canterbury)


Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V
Marshall, D. (Bodmm)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Head, Brig. A. H.
Mellor, Sir J.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Morris-Jones, Sir H
York, C


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)



Hogg, Hon Q
Morrison, Rt Hn. W. S (Cirencester)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Studholme and Major Conant.

Question put accordingly,
That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order, dated 24th September, 1948, entitled the Census of Distribution (1950) Order, 1948 (S.I., 1948,

No. 2176), a copy of which was presented on 24th September, in the last Session of Parliament, be annulled."

The House divided: Ayes, 90 Noes, 218.

Division No. 25.]
AYES
[11.10 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G
Glyn, Sir R.
Mellor, Sir J


Baldwin, A. E.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.


Barlow, Sir J.
Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)


Beamish, Maj. T. V H.
Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S (Cirencester)


Birch, Nigel
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Nicholson, G.


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Head, Brig. A. H.
Odey, G. W.


Bowen, R.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C
Orr-Ewing, I. L


Bower, N.
Hinchtngbrooke, Viscount
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Hogg, Hon Q
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hollis, M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W
Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)
Renton, D.


Bucharn-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.
Ropner, Col. L


Challen, C.
Hurd, A.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W)
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Jeffreys, General Sir G.
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Jenning, R.
Stodtfart-Scott, Col. M.


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Kendall, W. D.
Strauss, Henry (English Universities)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt Hon. H. F. C
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H
Studholme, H. G.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E
Lennox-Boyd, A. T.
Teeling, William


Davidson, Viscountess
Low, A. R. W.
Thomas, J. P. L, (Hereford)


De la Bere, R.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Touche, G. C.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Wadsworth, G.


Dower, Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)
Mackeson, Brig, H. R.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)


Drayson, G B.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Drewe, C.
Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Duthie, W. S.
Manningham-Buller, R. E
York, C.


Erroll, F. J.
Marlowe, A. A. H.



Gage, C.
Marples, A. E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Gammans, L. D.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Mr. Charles Taylor and




Mr. Baker White.




NOES


Acland, Sir Richard
Balfour, A.
Bottomley, A. G.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Barton, C
Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.


Albu, A. H.
Bechervaise, A. E.
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl. Exch'ge)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Benson, G.
Bramall, E. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Berry, H.
Brook, D. (Halifax)


Bacon, Miss A
Blyton, W. R.
Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)




Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hudson, J. H. (Eating, W.)
Pursey, Comdr. H.


Burdon, T. W.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Randall, H. E.


Burin, W. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Ranger, J.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rankin, J.


Champion, A. J.
Janner, B.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Coldrick, W.
Jeger, G (Winchester)
Rhodes, H.


Collick, P.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Paneras, S.E)
Richards, R


Collindridge, F.
Jenkins, R. H.
Robens, A.


Collins, V. J.
John, W.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Johnston, Douglas
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Cook, T. F.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)
Royle, C.


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Scollan, T


Corlett, Dr. J.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Segal, Dr. S.


Crossman, R. H. S
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Shackleton, E. A A


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Keenan, W.
Sharp, Granville


Daggar, G.
Kenyon, C
Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (St. Helens)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Shurmer, P.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Kinley, J
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Davies, S. O (Merthyr)
Lang, G.
Simmons, C. J.


Deer, G.
Lavers, S.
Skeffington, A. M.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.


Delargy, H. J.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Skinnard, F. W.


Diamond, J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, C. (Colchester)


Dobbie, W.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Dodds, N. N.
Logan, D. G
Snow, J. W.


Dumpleton, C. W.
Longden, F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lyne, A. W.
Stubbs, A. E.


Edwards, John (Blackburn)
McGhee, H. G.
Swingler, S


Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)
Mack, J. D.
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Evans, John (Ogmore)
MacPherson, M. (Stirling)
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)


Evans, S. N (Wednesbury)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Ewart, R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)


Farthing, W. J.
Mann, Mrs. J.
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)


Fernyhough, E.
Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)
Thurtle, Ernest


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E)
Marshall, F. (Brightside)
Tiffany, S.


Follick, M.
Mellish, R. J.
Timmons, J


Forman, J. C.
Hiddleton, Mrs. L.
Tolley, L.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Millington, Wing-Comdr E. R
Usborne, Henry


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Mitchison, G. R
Vernon, Maj. W. F


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Monslow, W.
Walkden, E.


Gibbins, J.
Moody, A. S.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Gibson, C. W
Morley, R.
Watson., W. M


Gilzean, A.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Weitzman, D.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mort, D. L.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Grey, C. F.
Moyle, A.
West, D. G.


Grierson, E.
Murray, J. D.
Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)


Griffiths, D (Rother Valley)
Nally, W.
While, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B


Guy, W. H.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Wilkes, L.


Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
O'Brien, T.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Hale, Leslie
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.
Orbach, M.
Williams, J. L (Kslvingrove)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Palmer, A. M. F
Williams, R. W (Wigan)


Hardy, E. A.
Pargiter, G. A
William, W. R. (Heston)


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Parker, J.
Willis, E.


Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)
Parkin, B. T.
Wise, Major F. J


Herbison, Miss M.
Paton, J. (Norwich)
Woods, G. S.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Pearson, A.
Yates, V. F.


Hobson, C. R.
Perrins, W.
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Holman, P.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Zilliacus, K


Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Porter, G. (Leeds)



Horabin, T. L.
Price, M. Philips
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hoy, J.
Pritt, D. N.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Wilkins.


Hubbard. T.
Proctor, W. T.



Question put, and agreed to.

HOUSING, WEST HAM

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Collindridge.]

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I rise to put to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health a number of questions regarding the critical housing situation in West Ham, where housing shortages are causing grave misery to thousands of families and are, I believe, adversely affecting output and production in one of Britain's key industrial areas. Housing difficulties are no novelty to West Ham, and in case anything I may say may be thought to give aid and comfort to hon. Members opposite, I want to say that one of the main aspects of West Ham's problems is the legacy of semi slum property that we have inherited from the hey-days of private enterprise when houses were not built to meet decent standards but for quick profits.
One of our problems is that over 4,300 houses in West Ham are over 75 years old, most of them squalid, dingy and small. I need not say anything about the pre-war conditions of housing in West Ham to elaborate further my proposition that the Tory Party have nothing to be proud of for its record in this field. It was scandalous. This problem of blight was accentuated and added to one hundredfold by the problems of the blitz. Of West Ham's 50,000 odd houses, over 13,600 were destroyed by the blitz and totally cleared; thousands of other houses were seriously damaged and the present position with regard to West Ham's housing is that there are about 22,000 families on the register waiting for homes. That list is going up by 150 families a week, and if we allow four persons per family, that means 80,000 people are waiting for homes.
It may be that some of these families are on other housing lists and may not be the direct responsibility of West Ham, But even if we were to reduce the figure to 18,000 families it leaves a gigantic problem when we consider that since the war only 868 permanent houses have been built in West Ham. That is, 868 houses rebuilt as against 14,000 destroyed in the war. So that whatever qualifications may be put upon the total figure of 22,000 the facts which are known and which can

be established are that there are thousands of families waiting for homes who are for the time being living in desperate circumstances. My own post-bag gives harrowing stories and accounts of conditions in which the families of West Ham are forced to live. For example, at the present time, 25 families are faced with eviction because, through no fault of their own, orders for possession have been made against them and the alternative facing them now is eviction into the streets or the workhouse.
Over 400 houses classified for demolition in West Ham are still occupied. Most of these are dangerous structures, in terrible condition, and are a menace to the families living in them. Seventy-eight families live in dwellings in respect of which closure orders have been made by the courts because of their insanitary condition. These homes are not fit for human habitation and are a breeding-ground for sickness. Ninety-three families are squatters in ex-military and labour camps, living in many cases in an appalling squalor. Four thousand, eight hundred families on the waiting list are families of ex-Service men and merchant seamen, who want to set up homes in West Ham again, or young families who want to set up house for the first time. It is a dreadful thing that there are thousands of young married couples in West Ham, many of them with children, who have never known what it is to have a home of their own. One hundred and fifty families on the waiting list are aged folk. One thousand, four hundred families are living in seriously overcrowded conditions or have insufficient bedroom accommodation to allow for the proper segregation of the sexes. That is the terrible extent of the problem that the authorities in West Ham and the Government have to face today.
I think I am entitled to say that the local authority cannot be accused of lacking energy or initiative in this matter. Of the 94 housing authorities in Greater London at the end of June of this year, West Ham was on the top in the number of dwellings approved and completed. But it is quite clear from what I have said that what has been accomplished is only a fraction of what needs to be done and must be done.
What has been done so far to tackle this grave problem? There was, first of


all, a mountain of repair work to do and that dissipated a great deal of labour and materials. There were 1,032 two-year emergency hutments erected. These have been already occupied for more than three years and are still occupied, and one wonders how long they will continue to be occupied. Five hundred and fifty ten-year hutments have been erected, and, as I say, 868 permanent houses. Of these, 124 were war destroyed houses which have been rebuilt. If one adds the number of ten-year hutments to the number of permanent houses, it means that in 3½ years we have only coped with a small fraction of West Ham's rehousing problem.
This situation in itself is bad enough, but the future prospects are equally disturbing. I am greatly concerned, as are many of my constituents, in particular by the precipitous drop in the number of new houses under construction. At the present time 298 houses are under construction, and on 19th November the Ministry of Health approved a contract for a further 10 houses. In these days the houses are being completed at the rate of about 60 a month. This means that in about five or six months' time all the houses under construction in West Ham will be completed and unless substantial new constructions are approved in the meantime, it means that house construction in West Ham will come to a standstill. Since February, 1947, only two contracts, totalling 78 dwellings, have been approved by the Ministry of Health and placed; and I want to ask my hon. Friend: Why has there been this reticence on the part of the Ministry and can we hope for a quicker reaction to this desperate situation in the future so far as the approval of contracts is concerned?
I appreciate that one of the main reasons why contracts put up by the local authority to the Ministry have been rejected is that the Ministry consider the tenders submitted were too high. I thoroughly sympathise with the interest in public economy which has led to that point of view. In order to meet that point of view, the West Ham Council has already reduced its housing standards below what it considers to be really desirable. It has stripped many of the features of its early housing programme. In the kitchen equipment, for instance,

I am advised that a number of cupboards is no longer included in the new houses, and that the height of flats has already been reduced to the by-law minimum, which is not entirely desirable. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that there must be a limit to this cutting down of housing standards, otherwise we shall be once more building slums.
The council has its own financial difficulties, and appreciates the importance of economy in these matters. But what I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary is, has the Ministry's ceiling figure for these housing contracts been adjusted to meet the increases in wages and cost of materials? The position at present is that the contractors, and even the council itself using direct labour, cannot bring their costing down to the level required by the Ministry. The effect is most dispiriting to all concerned with re-housing in West Ham. The time taken by technicians in scraping the barrel and trying to cut down to the Ministry's figure is causing frustration among the staffs of the technicians concerned. The situation is becoming grave from that point of view. I am not criticising in any way the decision of the Government in September last year to reduce the number of houses under construction; but it seems to me that we have long since passed the problems which gave rise to that decision. and that the problem now, particularly so far as West Ham is concerned, is that unless urgent action is taken to improve new contracts, the continuity of operatives engaged on housing will be broken; the labour force which has been accumulated with difficulty will be dispersed, as many of the technicians are dispersing and as have many of the building men in the council's Works Department.
Once a labour force of that kind disperses it is difficult, particularly in London, to attract them back again. It may well be that my hon. Friend will say that London and West Ham housing prices are higher than those in other areas, but I ask him whether his Ministry has given full consideration to the special factors which give rise to these circumstances in West Ham and in London? There is no doubt, for instance, that the rate of wages in London are higher than in any other part of the country. Then there are other special factors in London which operate towards raising the level of costs of house construction. There is


a high demand for all types of labour in London. There is a large amount of war damage repair work still to be done on factories, shops and hotels which offers attractive contracts. I might add that conditions of living in East London are not always conducive to the maximum output in the building industry. Therefore, I would ask that special consideration should be given to these facts.
I am anxious not to take up too much time and to allow my hon. Friend time to reply. But I would deal with one general matter which perhaps the hon. Gentleman cannot directly deal with, and that is the question of the new towns and how they will affect the waiting lists of the councils. It is most desirable that there should be quick development of the new towns. West Ham is particularly anxious that Basildon, in which both East and West Ham are interested, should be dealt with as a top priority. If the hon. Gentleman is in a position to give any declaration to that effect tonight, it will be of great comfort to the people of West Ham. The people on whose behalf I plead to the Ministry in order that as much assistance as possible may be given them, are people who work hard; they are some of the key workers of our country; stevedores, ship repairers, sugar refining workers, cable makers, fertiliser makers, and workers in power, transport and in many other undertakings. I do not ask for priority for them over coal miners or agricultural workers, but I do ask my hon. Friend whether they should not have equal consideration, and it is on their behalf that I have made my plea tonight.

11.31 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. John Edwards): I do not dissent in any way from the description given by my hon. Friend of the housing situation in West Ham. What I do say is that it is, unfortunately, true that we have this difficulty and this worrying situation in West Ham, and elsewhere, and the question which I think I must try to answer tonight is whether we are doing what we can, and whether we have done as much as we could. I think that there is no doubt that the final and long-term solution of the problems which London has in the housing field must be found in the new and expanding towns; but I cannot deal at length with the proposal,

which my hon. Friend has mentioned. for a new town at Basildon, although it would be of particular interest to inhabitants of West Ham. All I can say about that matter tonight is that a public inquiry has been held by my right hon. Friend, the Minister of Town and Country Planning, but he has, so far, not anounced any decision and, therefore, I canont tonight say anything on his behalf on that topic.
I must content myself with dealing with the points which have been put about housing in West Ham. I do not argue with my hon. Friend whether the housing list is right or wrong but we shall know because of the review which is taking place in West Ham as well as in other places. I must confine myself to the problems arising from the policy we have felt bound to adopt. The figure of 327 houses under construction was the last official figure, and since 31st October there has been a slight change; I understand that that is the position; but we share the council's anxiety over the drop in the number of houses under construction, and the Ministry of Health has pressed the council to submit further contracts but, for one reason or another, the preparatory work has not proceeded on their side as rapidly as might have been desired and there has been some difficulty in obtaining acceptable tenders; on that point I will say something in a moment. I agree that no tender was approved from February, 1947, to March; 1948. But I think that this fact on the whole can be approved, because there is no doubt at all that in February, 1947, the programme was very badly out of balance. Of 1,087 permanent houses, only 34 had been completed, 356 were under construction and the remaining 697 had not been started. Clearly that had to be put into balance. During 1947 we had several complaints from the council about various difficulties holding up their completion. We did make every effort, in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour and National Service, to improve the position.
Whether because of that, or for other reasons, certainly towards the end of 1947 the situation was improving considerably. At the end of December, 1947, the position was that of the 1,087 houses, 204 were completed, 701 were under construction and 182 still remained to be started. That improvement has continued


and the position now is that we do in fact want to see West Ham having a continuously running programme of work, with new tenders keeping pace with completed work. The council's future programme was discussed with their representatives and officers early in the year and again in July last, and allocations for future construction were mutually agreed. It was agreed that the allocation of houses for West Ham for the year ending 30th June, 1949, should be 420. I wish to make it clear that these allocations were based on the council's own estimate of what they could undertake. It is of interest to notice that at the last discussion the number was in fact increased at the suggestion of officers of the Ministry of Health. I would ask my hon. Friend to accept that as an indication that we are not trying to hold back the councils.
Let me make it very plain that even with this allocation of 420 we have not imposed any limit, and I think that the officers of the council were perfectly well aware that we are prepared to give further approval to as many houses as they are able to submit, provided that the price is satisfactory. With regard to the question of price, the tenders submitted in the past seemed to the officers of the Ministry of Health to be abnormally high, and we have felt bound to ask for revisions. I would not accept the view that such revisions as have been made have meant a reduction in housing standards. May I say quite frankly that I believe, and I am advised by my own people in the Ministry of Health, that the primary reason for the high tenders is expensive design.
For example, we rejected two tenders for 82 dwellings in May and June of this year because the price was high, and the revision made thereafter we think is likely to yield lower tenders. I am told that the plans for the council's dwellings have now been redesigned and the borough architect is hoping that there will be less difficulty in obtaining acceptable tenders in the future. A tender for 32 dwellings on the redesigning principle is now before us, and I have every reason to believe it will be approved this week. I would say a word about what is meant by this redesigning. Our architects' suggestions which have been accepted by the borough architect of West Ham include such things

as redesigning the roof pitch, simplifying the outline and eliminating unnecessary breaks, simplifying design wherever we can and making a more straightforward and therefore less expensive type. I am now talking about the broad structural matters and not fittings.
What about some of the particular things that have had to be changed? Here are some. The Borough wanted an independent boiler and an open fire in the living room. Our people said: "No, have an open fire in the living room with a back boiler and a radiator in the dining recess." I think that not unreasonable. Take the separate fuel store. The Borough architect wanted an entirely separate building and our people said: "No, that could not be chosen because it meant a higher price." It was therefore proposed, and accepted, that the fuel store should be a separate compartment in the ordinary out-building with its own door. Take another case where it was desired to use unit type kitchen fitments, which are expensive. It was said that there should be in the kitchen a full-length cupboard and dresser and two fitted table tops. This cut the cost. This is the kind of thing involved and I would remind the House that when all this is done we get a lower price of tender, and it does not mean we have cut standards to any appreciable extent, and certainly the houses re-designed are well above the standards laid down in the Housing Manual.
It is to the mutual advantage of the Ministry and the authority that this should be done, because if the authority is in financial difficulties it does not want to undertake greater expense than is necessary, because either it has to ask tenants for higher rents or find the money out of the rates. I think that there has been a disposition to go in for expensive designs which however admirable they may be, and I have no complaint of that, do force up the price, which makes things somewhat difficult for everyone. I would assure my hon. Friends that as far as we are concerned at the Ministry we will help the council in every way we can, and the sooner it is able to put other tenders in front of us the better. At the present time, when this tender for 32 houses has been settled, we shall not have a single tender in front of us, but having regard to those discussions about re-designing,


which, I am sure, are going to have the desired result, I hope the council will let us have new proposals as soon as possible. While we cannot promise that there will be no delay, I do say to my hon. Friends that we will do all we can to ensure that West Ham has a continuous run of work so that the labour force available is properly used.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: While I accept what my hon. Friend has said that there should be some modification to bring the fitments, etcetera, more into reasonable lines as far as cost is concerned, can he give an assurance that while these discussions are going on be-

tween his Ministry and the local councils there is no appreciable delay on the part of the Ministry before giving an actual decision to the local authority?

Mr. Edwards: As I have said, we must review these cases, and while I cannot say there will be no delay, now that we have got the new arrangement with the local authority I believe the tenders will be lower, with the result that I think we shall be able to dispose of them much more quickly.

Adjourned accordingly at Seventeen Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.